This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

There's a problem with the section titled 'Catholic uprising' in that it mentions James I repealling the Black acts in 1592 but linking to an article that states that the Black acts were passed by parliament in 1723 and reppealled in 1827.

I'm not particularly familiar with the subject matter but it seems pretty clear that one of those two things is incorrect. Would removing the link be the correct thing to do?

In the entry on Anne of Denmark, it says that the marriage ceremony was formalised in Oslo, Norway. "In August 1589, she was married, by proxy, to James, the young king of Scotland, and their actual wedding ceremony took place in Oslo, Norway, on November 23 of that year." Here it states that it was a few months later at Krondborg in Denmark. Could someone throw light on this discrepancy, please? King Hildebrand 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

James and Anne were married in the Old Bishops' Palace in Oslo in Norway, then part of the Kingdom of Denmark, on 23 November 1589. The information given on this page-now changed-was wrong. Rcpaterson 07:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as it arises animosity of some Great-Denmark POV pushers, Norway at that time was yet an own kingdom (we would say "in personal union...") and not directly "a part of Denmark". Suedois 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as it arises animosity of some Great-Denmark POV pushers, Norway at that time was yet an own kingdom (we would say "in personal union...") and not directly "a part of Denmark". Suedois 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Was Norway ever a part of Denmark, officially? My understanding was that there was an effective state union, although officially the two always remained separate. john k 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Norway lost gradually its statehood functions. Perhaps, and this is a very big perhaps, from c 1660s onwards we can somehow start to say that Norway was part of Denmark. Other interpretations are that it never was. In c 1660 (check the very correct year!), Denmark got a new constitution ("Lex regia" of Frederick III) where Denmark was changed to a hereditary kingdom, and got "absolutism" (or almost), over all territories. Denmark's that constitution was applied in Norway too. Until that time, Norway was hereditary kingdom and Denmark elective. Theoretically, their routes could have diverged, had Denmark elected anyone else than the one to hereditarily succeed in Norway. Already before that, king Christian III had dissolved the separate Royal Council of Norway, in around 1530s, but as the government of Norway sprang from the person of the hereditary king, it was theoretically of no importance who were the persons who "advised and counselled" the king. Of course, every bigger policy came to come from council in Copenhagen from 1530s onwards (before that, bigger policies came from king in Copenhagen, prepared by Danish advisers, but their execution had something to do with councillors in Norway who simultaneously were important officials having their powers of office), but routines were done by officials in Norway. Norway had its separate governor or viceroy until the very end, 1814. However, until the very end, kings used titulary of Denmark, Norway, Vends and Goths. In that sense, it was personal union. Suedois 17:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Using a long title doesn't make something merely a personal union. French Navarre was merged into France in 1620, but the Bourbon kings continued to be styled "King of France and Navarre." Castile was a single kingdom, but its titulary including a huge number of different places the king was supposedly king of (Castile, León, Granada, Toledo, Galicia, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and the Canary Islands). I think some kind of separate constitution is required for something to be a personal union. But all of this has little to do with James I. john k 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that James was 'despised' in Scotland for the attempted introduction of the Five Articles of Perth is far too strong. Implementation met with a degree of popular resistance, but this did not in any way express itself in distaste for the king.

The more fundamental point here concerns a common misconception-repeated all too often in Wikipedia pages- about the form of church government in Scotland at this time. While the Golden Acts of 1592 gave the appearance of establishing the Church of Scotland on a Presbyterian basis, the goal of Andrew Melville and his adherents, there were still individual ministers who had the title, if not the full functions, of bishop. From the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the manipulation of parliament and the General Assembly of the church, James had reintroduced first parliamentary and then diocesan Episcopacy. By the end of his reign the Church of Scotland had exactly the same Episcopal structure as its English cousin, with bishops operating in all of the ancient diocese, including the archdiocese of St. Andrews and Glasgow. The confusion on this issue is born from an inablity to distinguish Episcopacy, as a form of church government, from the liturgical practices of High Anglicanism, associated with John Whitgift, William Laud and the like. The Scottish church was both Episcopal and Calvinist. It was the attempt to move it in a more Anglican direction in the Five Articles of Perth that met resistance. The Scottish Church did not become Presbyterian until November 1638, when the bishops were formally expelled by the Glasgow General Assembly. Rcpaterson 08:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Who were the ancestors of Flaald?

I must be missing something here-or admitting to a gap in my education-but I simply do not understand the link between James' wisdom and the gossip about his parentage. Is this meant to imply that David Rizzio was considered to be unusually wise? I am completely baffled. Could this reference please be explained-or removed-as a matter of urgency. Rcpaterson 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Now removed. Rcpaterson 21:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Solomon son of David of course: King Solomon was supposed to be remarkably wise and religious, and so people flattered the similarly reputed James by comparing them; gossips and wits then joked that he was thus 'The son of David'. There was a certain amount of scurrilous gossip about the Kings paternity, and some claimed that Mary's secretary Rizzio had been having an affair with her (hence Darnley supposedly killed him because of this) and had fathered James on her. It wasn't seriously believed, but it was well enough known for the King of France to make a barbed comment about it. The joke also made reference to the fact that both Davids were musicians. A.

Thank you for that clarification. Could you please guide me to the source for Henri's alleged observation? Rcpaterson 22:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't get at the book at the moment, and can't remember its title, so not at present. It was a book about the Stuart Kings and Queens from James VI/I - Anne, but I can't be more precise. A.

Forgive me for pressing the point; but can I have this reference in the very near future? Rcpaterson 06:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Found it. J.P. Kenyon, 'The Stuarts'. In fact, I got the point slightly wrong, so I reproduce the point. P.53, note 8 re 'Scottish Solomon: "James's controversial writings had earned him this title, but it was usually employed sarcastically. For instance, Henry IV is said to have remarked 'that he hoped he was not David the fiddler's son' - a reference to Mary Stuart's music-loving secretary, David Rizzio." As you can see, the title Scottish Solomon was used sarcastically, but not by Henri: he instead seems to have made a pun on it regarding the paternity issue. A.

Thank you. There still seems to be some confusion here. The main article states as fact what seems to have been a remark allegedly made by Henri IV. In other words, a legend has been turned into substance without any real documentary justification. What Kenyon says about what Henri is supposed to have said will not do. Can this be reduced to hard documentary support or removed? You may consider the point trivial; but I feel sure you will understand the danger in creating myths: once they are up and running they are almost impossible to knock down. Rcpaterson 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, the title of 'Scottish Solomon' should not be attributed to Henri: if the anecdote is true, he would have heard of it, but he clearly didn't invent it. As for the 'David the Fiddler's son' remark, I can't verify that any more than I already have: I couldn't find any explanation of where the anecdote came from. However, would it not be enough to comment that the title 'Scottish Solomon' was often used sarcastically (of which there seems to be little doubt), and that historian J.P. Kenyon reports Henri IV of France having commented ... . Because it is a rather amusing remark, and certainly suggests what the French King was expected to think of James, if not necessarily what he actually thought of him. A.

I don't see why the quote should not be included, so long as we indicate that it is not certain that Henri IV actually said it. If he did not say it, somebody else did and attributed it to Henri, and probably not long after the time in question (because who would make up such a joke in, say, 1750? it wouldn't really be funny anymore.) john k 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to some mention being made of this, provided the context is made clear. I'm a historian and a hard-nosed empiricist, so I always look for substance. There are too many legends masquerading as fact. I personally doubt that Henri would ever have made such a remark in any public way; for to do so would not just have caused serious offence but would have called into question the political-as well as the biological-legitimacy of the British monarchy. In the seventeenth century this would have been no light matter. Rcpaterson 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it depends on the context it was made (might Henri have kept a journal?) I have no particular convictions as to whether it is or is not true; I simply found it interesting when I read it and thought it should be mentioned here (after all, history revolves as much around the amusing little anecdotes as around the substantial and certain, and if the difference can be made clear then there is room for both).A.

As I have already said I have no problem with small asides of this nature: the problem arises when a supposition is transformed into a fact, as it was when I first noticed this. Good history will always make place for kitchen gossip as well as grand documents. The issue is always over that of inclusion: in other words, what is important and what is not. I really do not want to belabour this, but a speculative reference to what Henri might have said about this or that is best included in a footnote rather than incorporated in the text, as Kenyon obviously did when he touched on the matter. Rcpaterson 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely the "glaring mistake" identified in this edit is in fact correct: that our man was James VI of Scotland until his death. I see the edit has survived for over a month, but I'm bringing the subject here for reconsideration. AndyJones 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a quite unbelievable amount of ignorance about James and his reign. You are quite right: he was James VI in Scotland until his death. He may have liked to style himself as 'King of Great Britain', but he was never crowned as such, and neither the Scottish nor the English parliaments recognised the British title. There is, however, an even deeper confusion here, which I have not tackled because it is too well established: James, during his lifetime, was never known as, or referred to as 'James I', even of England. He was James, King of England, Ireland and France. The regnal number was attributed long after his death. He would always have though of himself as James VI, in much the same way as the present queen is Elizabeth II. Rcpaterson 22:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"James I" only coming into serious use after 1685, I take it? Speaking of which, was James II really called "James VII" in Scotland? john k 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

He was: in Scotland! (See the Acts of the Parliament of Scotland). Not to do so would have involved some degree of legal confusion. Rcpaterson 01:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I figured he was called that de jure. I was more wondering if he was called "James VII" in every day use, as well. john k 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Only in an official and legal documents. In everyday usage he would simply be 'the King' or 'King James', in much the same way as the present monarch is referred to as 'the Queen' or 'Queen Elizabeth', and almost never as 'Elizabeth II'. Rcpaterson 22:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me for being such an ignoramus regarding wiki protocol, and without prejudice to my English cohabitees, surely this page should be more suitably titled. Numbers are irrelevant, there not having been a prince of both realms before, surely the title should read 'James, King of Scotland, England and Ireland'? Or, though never a formal title, 'James, King of great Britain'. Purely for political fairness' sake. I personally don't have a problem with "The Wisest Fool" being known as the first James of England, but I do think that considering that he was "Jamie Saxt" of Scotland for 34 years before he went south that this should be reflected from the start. Brendandh 21:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could I suggest you firstly have a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). Addhoc 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm from England. I've had a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), and it's a hodge podge of compromise - trying to shoehorn many monarchical systems into one - and with a lot of argument. The simple solution to the UK situation from 1603 to 1707 is to use both regnal numbers. All the Stuarts after James VI/I styled themselves King/Queen of Great Britain. So the James I of England page would become James I/VI of Great Britain. We then have Charles I of Great Britain, Charles II of Great Britain, James II/VII of Great Britain, William III/II and Mary II of Great Britain. I've used the English regnal number first because, hey, we have 10 times the population of Scotland, and I'm English - but I'm not too fussed. Failing this, if you must call the page after England, then have reambiguation pages: with a James I of England page explaining that most information is contained under the James IV of Scotland page, and pointing there. After that, have a Charles I of Scotland Page explaining that Charles reigned Scotland from X until Y, and the stating that full details of Charles I are held on the Charles I of England page, and pointing there. Ditto for Charles II, James VII, Mary II, William II. After all, Scotland is a country that does very much refer to James VI, James VII, William II, and calls Prince Charles the Duke of Rothesay, not the Prince of Wales (because, when he's in Scotland, he has different titles). Simhedges 22:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Throughout the article there are little or no citations, except for several references at the very bottom of the article. I have read the article many times and I know it is definitely worthy of being a featured article, but I have some questions about the content:

• Since it is a featured article, how does it get by the strenuous referencing requirements that most featured article candidates are denied as a result of? (ex. little or no citations in the main article)

• What referencing method was used for the article?

• Does anyone know the opposition or concerns raised when this article was just a candidate (for featured status)?

Thank you very much

-- AJ24 5:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Revisionism of King James has restored his reputation as an unfortunate king who simply fell short of some of his greatest achievements."

This sentence, which I've copied from the article, doesn't mean anything.

How can someone fall short of their own greatest achievements? Can someone who has read the particular books that are quoted here revise this muddly sentence?

Or has someone editted out something vital?

-- Amandajm 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's just atrocious prose-cut it out. Rcpaterson 03:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand the decissions made by some previous edittors of this article about what to cut and what to leave in.

It seems to me that speculatively and sensational material has been included to the expense of the more factual.

I'm going to try to reverse some of that. Please check to make sure that I haven't ommitted anything accurate and vital.

-- Amandajm 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there bornhj, sorry to delete the link [1] but it just seemed out of place, it appears later on in the article in context, in the first line of "personal relationships". I hope this clears explains why I deleted it. Cheers. Potters house 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to 6th July. This is from what I could find on one "Stephen A. Coston Sr" via a quick google: he appears to be a self-published religious fundamentalist who has never been published in any peer-reviewed academic journal. I would therefore guess he isn't considered a reputable historian by any recognised experts of the field. Certainly, the Coston page linked to is an appalling piece of POV nonsense. The statement: "Also in the strictist terms the King was married for 20 years and had nine children to the same woman, therefore he could not have been a homosexual, but was instead a faithful husband." is laughable idiocy. (Oscar Wilde had two children. Andre Gide married but eloped with the son of his best man. He later conceived a child with another woman. And so on.) But all this is beside the point. The article is meant to be factual, not speculative, hence Coston doesn't belong here. However you may wish to create a special page for him to outline all his deeply fascinating theories for the dumb multitudes - including why James, Carr and Buckingham were just bestest pals.

Engleham

Thanks for talking, There are problems with the revert as I did also remove a link that was in an inappropriate place and placed it (or rather left the one) in the Refs. It seemed like a silly link anyway but I thought I would retain it to keep the neutrality of the article. It seemed to be logical that James was not a homosexual but would be correctly defined as a bisexual if the accusations were true, thus the comments; "Also in the strictest terms the King was married for 20 years and had nine children to the same woman, therefore he could not have been a homosexual, but was instead a faithful husband." Or a better wording "but is perceived to be a faithful husband (by those opposing the homosexual view)"

You said; "The article is meant to be factual, not speculative, hence Coston doesn't belong here. However you may wish to create a special page for him to outline all his deeply fascinating theories for the dumb multitudes - including why James, Carr and Buckingham were just bestest pals."

I never overwrote the article but just stated that "others conclude" I believe that many scholars are correct in this point and that he has been unjustly accused! Mostly Christian of course, because what other group would object. But to avoid POV I have just included it, which is what a good Wikipedian should do, put all the facts down and have a well rounded article. If you understand that the King was a protestant King who made many Catholic enemies, you can understand why many Catholic sites proclaim that James was gay. Also if the site is pro Homosexual it is may have an agenda, thus all the more reason for a non biased article.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/james-h.html

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0463.htm

http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0060.htm

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/was-kingjames-homosexual.html

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/was_king_james_a_homosexual.htm

You also delete all reference to the flag which is historical fact. I have no idea why you would do this and no reason was given. As to POV I see that you perhaps have already concluded that James is indeed a homosexual and have rejected any other conclusions outright. If you carefully read the above links you will be surprised at how many facts prove the contrary. If you were to read the article you would assume that James was a Homosexual, but not everyone holds to that notion, especially fundamentalist Christians who claim that James was a Protestant Christian king. Included it brings an awareness of the debate, makes for a good discussion point, and gives a non biased POV. Nick. Potters house 07:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"If you understand that the King was a protestant King who made many Catholic enemies, you can understand why many Catholic sites proclaim that James was gay." The belief by most recognised scholars that James was primarily homosexual isn't based on Catholic slurs, contemporary or otherwise. It's based on primary evidence. Even if you dismiss eyewitness accounts of his behavior as "biased", his own love letters and the fact that he showered honours and fortune on handsome young men for no reason would be enough to seal the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, given homophobia, and the fact that he's seen an a Protestant and Christian icon, this is all subject to *unreasonable* doubt and spurious claims. Any Wikipedia entry for such a figures immediately becomes a battle ground between Protestants, Catholics, English, Scots, right-wing Christians, gays, etc, etc. The best option in such circumstances is for the article to stick to simple facts, and not tediously cater for the various speculations, often bizarre, of the various camps. So, with regard to James's relationships with young men, it's preferable the article simply state what occurred, and leave it at that. Which is what it was doing before your additions. I won't even bother to read your links because I've read the primary sources, not twisted accounts by wingnuts, and I suggest you do the same. I'm again deleting your additions for the reasons given above, and because Coston is not a recognised scholar, and the article includes no other speculations by any other scholars, so your addition makes the article wildly unbalanced. The pre-existing neutral sentence: "The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so." succinctly sums up the issue for an article that is already very long. As previously, I suggest you create a Coston page.

Engleham

It seems that you are content on having a biased article. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral i.e. having both or all sides of the story so that the informed reader can make up their own minds as to further study or investigation of claims. Whether James was Gay or not, it is not the issue, the issue is having a non biased article. At present the article basically says "James was Gay" but there are many who contest that view. This is a fact and must be mentioned because it provides the reader with the whole picture, not one sided bias. If, for example the article stated that James was not gay, and you came along and said that he is gay, although I might not like it, I would be forced to let you add that to the article because there is indeed many vocal people who claim this. For this reason I am reverting the article. If this cannot be reasoned perhaps we can mediate. Also when you finish a post please put 4 ~'s, that will put your name and time you posted, thanks. Potters house 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"At present the article basically says "James was Gay""

It doesn't say that at all. In covering his life it necessarily details the fact that he fell in love with a succession of young men. Whether the relationships were platonic or sexual is left up to reader to decide. The article simply presents the facts.

"but there are many who contest that view. This is a fact and must be mentioned"

And the article does. With this eloquent sentence which sums three centuries of bitching:

"The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so."

I didn't write that sentence, but it reads very plain and balanced to me.

But I don't think you're being honest. You want Coston in. Forget it. You may as well reference David Irving. If I don't delete him, others eventually will. So if you don't lose the battle today, you will tomorrow. On high profile Wiki articles like this, the record shows that flake references don't survive. That said, I don't believe this article will ever amount to much because there's too many conflicting interests resulting in endless edit wars. e.g the current utterly misleading minor reference to Esme Stuart indicates some previous shitfight. I'm not about to waste my time fixing it.

I do scratch my head though as to why fundamentalist Christians have, in the last few years, suddenly decided to make James some kind of holy icon, and its so desperately important to them that be a certified heterosexual, merely because of his association with the King James Version. It's as tenuous and stupid as suddenly deciding to canonise Elizabeth II because, say, a bridge had been commissioned in her name. Engleham 13:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are not willing to discuss this so I will invite a mediator in to try and sort this out. In regards to your personal attacks on fundamentalist Christians who "try" to make James some kind of holy icon, it would do you well to read the above links that I posted (which you refused to read), as this is neither a novel thing or unfactual. The argument is not that you think he is gay and I think he is not, the argument is that there are facts on both sides that need to be known. To say that the statement "The question of James' sexuality was a point of controversy during his lifetime and has remained so" is enough information on the issue is inaccurate and misleading.

Also to say that sourcing Coston is like quoting David Irving, and also the Personal attacks on my capability to source information is uncalled for. I have provided many other links but you simply refused to look. You are demonstrating a personal bias which is not helping the issue which seems to have been a problem before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Engleham Potters house 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've been more than generous in the time I've wasted humouring you. Which really, is all one can do. As you obviously find homosexuality so horrible that you need to distort historical truth, may I suggest you go and rewrite, say, most of the Renaissance artist entries? It'll provide you with hours of edit war entertainment, and with dedication, may turn you from being a mere minor figure here amongst the Catholic/Protestant/English/Scotch fruitcake push, into a Wiki troll legend. Engleham 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a soapbox for zealots

Fundamentalist cranks who operate sites called "jesusislord.com" and "baptistpillar.org" have nothing to contribute to a serious, dispassionate, encyclopedic treatment of any subject. Ben-w 04:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Fundamentalist cranks? Please refrain from derogatory POV. The name of the site is not the issue but the content! Please state you reasons why this content should not be included. Why is a person with "Jesus" in thier domain name all of a sudden a Zealot? or Baptist. I am reporting you to Wiki admins. Potters house 08:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The words alone don't make the side a 'zealot' site. You can judge them, however, by their vapid content, their lack of historical context, their anti-Catholic rants, their rants against everything from other denominations to 'sin' in today's society, etc. 68.211.77.10 10:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, gents, firstly, do please both calm down. I'm sure it's possible for us all to accept eachother's PoV. However, Ben, my advice would be to refrain from such a confrontational attitude, and from making such sweeping generalisations - in point of fact, I myself run a Christian-based website - are you to claim that, despite my many, many edits, that "I have nothing to contribute". Were I to take you too seriously, as I believe Potters house to have, I may well be insulted. Please do consider others' feelings before you post such self-indulgent nonsense. And, like I said, Potters, a bit of an over-reaction on your part - I'm sure Ben can read this response and see that he made a slight error, learn from it, and move on. Throwing admins around is neither useful nor appreciated. // D B D 12:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, two Christians! Why, that's almost a Crusade. However, perhaps Potters House's valuable time might be better invested in the apparant endless edit war for the Potters House wiki entry? I just flicked over to it: golly, all those ungodly accusations flying about on the Discussion page --it seems more like a shitfight than a church. But then, apostates can be so troublesome. However, didn't Jesus command get thine own house in order? Oh, and here's an outraged baptist doesn't think much of Pastor Coston's self-published tome either: http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_baptist_preacher_burned.htm He seems to think James was an absolute cunt. How unChristian. Engleham 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly why I am trying to get this information up here, because there are very notable and strong debates concerning James sexuality and his conduct. It is only fair to have both sides of the coin! Potters house 13:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't care how insulted you are; don't put words in my mouth, or take them out. Arguments which are entirely sourced from fundamentalist websites like "kjvonly", "baptistpillar", "jesusislord" are not historical, encylcopedic resources and have no place in an encyclopedia article about King James I. None. Between you, you have all about twelve million zealous fundamentalist sites (and, please, don't create a site called "kjvonly" and then take umbrage when someone calls you a biblical fundamentalist) where you can go and play and have your theological discussions. This is not a suitable venue for your harranguing and crusading. Take your zealotry, bible-thumping and sectarian screeds out of wikipedia and run along to jesusislord.com which has that sort of thing as its stock-in-trade. This is an article about King James I.

Potters house, stop being disingenuous. This is not about "both sides of the coin" on the matter of James's sexuality -- this is you trying to present your sectarian zealotry where it is not appropriate. Take your preachers and your scriptures and your tiresome wars of religion back to your little websites and fling your citations of scripture around at each other there. Ben-w 22:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look I don't care if you hate all christians or if there is a Pro Homosexual agenda, I just want to provide a non biased article by the inclusion of other refs that's all! Potters house 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

"I just want to provide a non biased article" No you don't. The other poster has already pointed out your deceit. Trying to force Coston on this page is like wanting to put David Irving on the Auschwitz page to call it "balance". In any case, by going through my contribution list yesterday and vandalising pages simply because I contributed to them in the past, you've shown your true vindictive colors. Whatever thing you are, you certainly aren't a Christian. Like Deborah Lipstadt who wisely refuses to waste her time debating with Holocaust deniers, I haven't the slightest intention of engaging you any further. Engleham 13:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Potters house, you are being incredibly disingenuous. You are trying to sneak in your favourite zealot in as a reliable source about what you think King James did with his penis and how important you think this is. This sort of thing is simply not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. On welovethebible.com or jesusistrulylord.org or whatever other crank sites you run in your spare time, you are free to grind whatever axes you please, obsess about the sex lives of long-dead monarchs to your heart's content, and bandy biblical passages around as much as you like. Don't do that here. Do not try to slyly insinuate your brand of dogma into a Wikipedia article. You might also wish to consider why you have resorted to dishonesty, deceit and subterfuge in an attempt to achieve whatever it is you want to achieve. I think you may have broken a Commandment or two there. Ben-w 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

So if a person is a Christian they are incredible and a zealot, but if they are a homosexual they are credible and have credence? This is bias. The think you are missing is the facts, stop attacking people and just look at the facts. Potters house 22:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you give one, non-Academic, clearly biased source as if it represents a credible viewpoint. It does not. I've left your stuff in there, but it deserves deletion until you find a better source to the viewpoint. Ah, and BTW, I'm a Christian. I wouldn't consider myself incredible or a Zealot, but Stephen A. Coston Sr. seems to look like one. BovineBeast 23:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is rather amazing that the site is not Coston's it is just a web reproduction of his book [2]. So reguardless of how you view the site, the content is what is important. I don't care if you are hindu, christian, homosexual, or a scientologist, the facts are facts, some conclude that he is not a homosexual or bisexual and that is a fact which must be made known or else it is a biased article. Potters house 09:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Great, then find a mainstream, unbiased source to show that such a conclusion can be reasonably reached. Else there is no bias, and the article simply relates the only conclusion that has been reached by people in the know, which is NPOV. BovineBeast 14:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You're still doing it, Potters house. First: leave your biased, cranky, POV bible-thumping pet project websites OUT OF THIS ARTICLE. Second: stop being deceitful and dishonest about what you are doing. Ben-w 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

James the Sixth was one of the most successful princes of his age. Although there may be merit in all the 'argie-bargies' ongoing here, it seems that this spat is more about hurt egos than trying to represent 'qualified' truths. I live in North Berwick, where he supposedly slobbered at the antics of the witches, and especially at seeing Satan's(probably the Earl of Bothwell's) backside being kissed, before personally consigning the coven to the fire, after much torture in Edinburgh. This story may be apocryphal, but like all apocrypha presumably has some basis in fact. I am also a cousin (somewhat obliquely!) of James himself, and of Esmé Stuart, considered his first dalliance that way. What is important however, is not what he did with his willy or where he put it, or what he wanted to do with it, (however, he did produce male heirs.) but what he left to civilisation. By his accession to the English throne, he united the disparate parts of the British Isles. This led to the major colonial expansion that ended in Empire, without which we would be without the modern states of India, USA, Canada, Australia, South Africa (I won't mention the Middle East!). He was a hard-nosed pragmatist in his dealings with his subjects and with his religieux. The middle way seems to be a hard path for anyone to take, but especially during the ferment of 16th-17th Century Britain, and I believe he did it more than modestly well. Please can we discuss the ramifications rather than the tittle-tattle of his reign? ...However, knowing nothing about 'Coston' apart from this barney, I would contend that old Jamie certainly was the other queen in his marriage! Brendandh 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made my position clear: the inclusion of extremist, opinionated religious websites is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The complainant is trying to use a particular, extreme NPOV source to speculate and digress in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic way. The version of the article for which comment was requested looks fine to me as it does not attempt to shift the terms of the discussion by including an extremist, biased source. Ben-w 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal case concerning the portrayal of his sexuality

Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Potters house, Engleham, Ben-w

Would any other involved parties add their name to the list.

Also could involved parties comment below on their views about this version of the article. Thanks, Addhoc 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there Addhoc. I don’t think that the version offered above is much different. It provides similar information. The link http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm is being pushed. I feel that this link is about the same quality and bias as the site I have linked to. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/rumors.htm

My hope is that there will be equilibrium. Notice that I have not deleted all of the claims that he was gay or anything, I have simply added that some others don't agree, and in my eyes is only fair. There are many things that come into play here. There is a debate about the accuracy of the King James Bible, and many will dismiss all claims made because of the notion that James was a homosexual. Also James was a protestant King who has various attempts on his life by the Roman Catholic Church. He greatly opposed Catholicism in the UK. Thirdly James was a Scottish King ruling over the entire UK. These three things seem to attract a desire to tarnish the king by claiming he was gay. Of course http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Engleham seems to think that any historical figure has a secret gay past. This type of generalization is not warranted. And if mentioned, there should at least be room for a counter argument. I never said that there are not claims but I included that some of those claims are disputed.

Most of this info comes from people who seem to have an agenda by claiming that most historical figures were gay. If you look through the history of one of the main posters http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&target=Engleham you will see that his main goal is to claim that Lincoln was gay, James 1 of England was gay, Erasmus was gay, Ludwig was gay, Shakespeare was gay and many, many others. I can understand that some people were gay and to mention this is fine, but these comments seem to say that if anyone ever expresses love to a man, then it is sexual and not just a phileo love or brotherly love but is always interpreted as eros or erotic love or lust. There is very little proof of this in most situations and it is mostly fiction and speculation. It seems also that if one tries to offer objective arguments against this it is considered homophobia. I am not against facts and if someone was gay or considered gay then it is fine to put that information in because it is true! But both sides must be allowed to provide the reader with a non biased judgment. I am against the reading something into those facts that is simply not there or if people like Engleham simply claim that my "agenda" is to push that James wasn't gay. Although I believe this, I never vandalized the article but simply included a portion which I think gives us a well rounded, non biased article.

Imagine if I scoured the net claiming that everyone was in fact having sex with animal’s simply because he had animals and expressed his “love” for them! I am an animal lover. But please don't quote me out of context. Potters house 02:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't make it clearer: the issue is with the sources and basis for your assertions. You cannot use sectarian, dogmatic sources like "jesus-is-lord" as evidence; you don't argue from the bible here, you don't thrust your petty infighting about what Reverend Coston said to whom at the last synod into this article and attempt to skew the focues of what should be a dispassionate encyclopedia article. This is not a theological playground for your sectarian disputes and bible study. Ben-w 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc: the version of the article you reference is also poor, but as I've stated before it's always going to be that way because this historical figure has too many conflicting political, religious and wingnut parties always at war over it. So I find it pointless to contribute, apart from deleting the more outrageous references. The following phrase is typical of the lack of scholarship: "Some historians(especially in Whig history) have said that James was homosexual, based upon an assortment of contemporary Puritan and/or Presbyterian accounts." Utterly incorrect. Discussion of the King's unkingly behaviour was universal, the primary texts are not all "Puritan and/or Presbyterian accounts" by a long mile. And of course, there are James's own letters: e.g. 75 to Buckingham survive. Aside from this however, is the fact that his elevation of these young men served to empty the Treasury considerably and shift power into their hands. The distorted article doesn't address these machinations which were a major contentious issue of the reign: Carr and Esmé Stuart weren't simply "courtiers". The weasel words used are ridiculous: "RUMORS were later spread that James was little moved by the death because he had romantic affections for George Villiers. The two met in 1614 and James IS SAID to have nicknamed the young man "Steenie"". Clearly the person making these additions hasn't read James's own letters. Of course, James was his own best dissembler, addressing the howl of contemporary criticism directly: "I, James, am neither God nor 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....Jesus Christ did the same and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John and I have my George." Highly comical, especially given that (as recent scholarship has highlighted), homosexual advocates since the early Middle Ages had been flag waving that relationship, like those of Jupiter/Ganymede, Apollo/Hyacinthus, etc., as justification for their desires. But this is by the by. The fact is: while the historiographical tradition is one of dissembling, almost every modern properly accredited academic historian accepts that the mentality of James was implicity homosexual or bisexual. A majority also believe it was acted upon (e.g. David M. Bergeron, Roger Lockyer). Even the minority that have their doubts (e.g. Maurice Lee), certainly accept the physicality of the relationships, if not actual buggery. Like Edward II or Henri III, but not, say, William III, it's moved beyond dispute, except in wingnut circles. How the article squares all this is not something I wish to involve myself in. As previously stated, I've finished with pandering to the Potters House Troll. But as previous posters have also stated, one thing is surely paramount: the insertion of this rubbish self-published religous author should be resisted if the credibilty of the article is not to reduced to a total farce. I encourage anyone to delete any referencing of it on sight. Engleham 03:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How about if I creat a new web page with the same information on it. Without the Jesus tag? Potters house 06:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell, it's almost like you're getting it! Yes, create as many web pages as you like, and put as much Jesus on them, or not, as you choose! Off you go and walk with Jesus and play with Jesus and worship Jesus and bicker about what you think Jesus said and do whatever Jesus things you Jesus people do. Just do it elsewhere. Ben-w 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben-w, possibly next time, just say "yes that would be fine" or something. Addhoc 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent advice Ben, especially as the Jesus people are extremely busy elsewhere on a host of Christian wikis. A partial list is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OrthodoxWiki Wikipedia is virtually a heathen backwater... Engleham 11:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, could we agree in this discussion, we should avoid disparaging any Wikipedian on grounds of faith or sexuality. Addhoc 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So the whole debate is that you hate Christians and hate me and therefore I can't have any say whatsoever! If you people would like to get back to the main argument and stop slandering me it would work out alot quicker. Mediation is not for fighting about beliefs, but for working things out in a mature and factual manner. Post in Uncylopedia if you cannot debate logically Potters house 12:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, also could we agree that in this mediation, we should avoid contravening the advice of WP:CALM... Addhoc 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Relevant Policy

Regarding the disputed section of this article, the following policies have particular relevance:

• WP:NPOV - extract below relating to viewpoints

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

• WP:V - extract below is the policy in a nutshell

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.

2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In this context, the information that Potters house would like to include has to be demonstrably from a significant minority and published by a reputable source. Regarding the information currently in the article, this is being represented as the majority view and should be substantiated with reference to commonly accepted texts, which obviously would have been published by reputable sources.

Regarding the sources that Potters house has produced so far, I would suggest they clearly demonstrate a minority opinion. However, I am not presently convinced they demonstrate a significant minority that has prominent adherents. Regarding the current version of the article, I would consider the books (not websites) listed under 'sources' to represent the majority view and the website of Rictor Norton to represent a significant minority. In this context, I would suggest the opening sentence of this section should provide an introduction, instead of a quote from a significant minority source. Also, I would suggest that all of the material in this section should be fully supported by references including the somewhat vague image caption. Addhoc 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on James, by Jenny Wormald, has to say on the subject of his sexuality:

Re: Lennox

It was in September [1579] that [James's] cousin Esmé Stuart came over from France, to become the king's first ‘favourite’. Elevated to the earldom of Lennox (the existing holder of the title, Robert Stewart, bishop of Caithness, having yielded to royal pressure to resign it) in 1580 and then raised to a dukedom in 1581, Lennox was loathed as a pro-French Catholic who enjoyed all too much of the king's favour.

Much has been made of James as the lonely teenager desperate for affection, and no doubt this played a part. But what we are seeing here is the start of a pattern which was repeated in the case of James's other three great favourites: George Gordon, earl of Huntly; and, in England, Robert Carr, earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, duke of Buckingham. James had asserted his kingship, not his loneliness; his authority, not his dependence. Lennox, like his successors, appeared on the scene and demonstrated his usefulness, in this case in the factional struggles surrounding the king, notably in his part in Morton's final downfall.

Re: later favorites, court culture, question of James's sexuality in general:

It is in this scrambling, hothouse environment that the notorious royal favourites must be set. Sir Walter Scott introduced the note of immorality; and some modern scholars—notably literary critics—still find the question of James's homosexuality a source of great fascination. There is almost the danger of forgetting that, even if homosexual activity as opposed to homoerotic feeling is ascribed to the king, at the very least, James was bisexual, and succeeded, where his three predecessors had failed, in providing heirs to the throne, which after the previous half-century came as a welcome relief. Moreover, even if seen under the guise of courtly love, the male favourite had had as much of a political role in Elizabeth's court as James's. Whatever the sexual attractions, the main point is that James never allowed his personal feelings to dictate his political ones.

It has already been suggested that Esmé Stuart has loomed too large in the early 1580s, being allowed to crowd out the other things—his poets, the beginnings of his political role—which brought the king out of his harsh childhood. In the late 1580s and 1590s Huntly was favoured when useful, attacked and (in 1596) exiled when not; equally, he had ignored factional pressure after the death of Lord Chancellor Maitland in 1595 and determined to fulfil the role himself. No amount of blandishments from the first great favourite of the English reign, the Scot Robert Carr, who rose to prominence in 1607, persuaded James to appoint one of his clients as secretary in succession to Salisbury in 1612. Carr did accumulate honours and acquire office: he was created Viscount Rochester in 1611 and earl of Somerset in 1613, and between 1612 and 1614 he exercised the functions of secretary of state. In 1613 he and his chosen bride, Lady Frances Howard, also had the all-important backing of the king in Lady Frances's efforts to get her first marriage to the earl of Essex annulled; having successfully forwarded the necessary legal proceedings and squashed the reservations of a discomforted archbishop of Canterbury, James even paid for their wedding that December. However, when in 1615 Somerset reacted to the arrival on the scene of George Villiers by behaving insolently, James put him firmly in his place. Later that year when the king heard rumours of the involvement of the earl and countess in the murder of Somerset's erstwhile adviser Sir Thomas Overbury, favour did not save them from investigation by a royal commission or from subsequent prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment in 1616, although it did save them from death.

Villiers, James's greatest favourite, was appointed cupbearer to the king in 1614 and gentleman of the bedchamber in the following year; thereafter, following the downfall of Somerset, his rise was rapid: knighted and created Viscount Villiers (1616) and successively earl (1617), marquess (1618), and duke (1623) of Buckingham. Perhaps more attention should be paid to the fact that Villiers was brought to James's attention by his wife and by George Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury. Why? No doubt to undermine Somerset and his Howard allies, but this only addresses their objections to a particular favourite. What were the positive advantages they saw to providing the king with a new favourite? To amuse the king? To provide him with someone who, if necessary, would take the rap for unpopular actions or simply take some of the pressure of endless demands for patronage from his shoulders? James might give his favour initially to men of little prominence, but not to political nonentities: to retain favour they had to demonstrate that they were politically useful. Buckingham undoubtedly did, as the patronage networks became increasingly focused on him. That did not mean that the king gave up overall control. The royal chaplain and religious controversialist George Carleton at last stopped being fobbed off with minor bishoprics and got a plum, Chichester, not because his name was on Buckingham's lips, but because James had been impressed with his performance as a delegate at the Synod of Dort. Buckingham's strength was that he knew how to please his royal master. He was, of course, hated by those who failed to benefit from his patronage. There was a good deal less complaining from those who benefited from it. But under the flexible James the patronage networks remained ideologically open. No Jacobean parliament wanted to impeach Buckingham, as Charles I's first two did. It was after 1625, when Buckingham adapted to the new king, Charles I, who had nothing of the flexibility of his father, and when, to compound his increased unpopularity, disastrously went to war with both France and Spain in the same year—1627—that he was seen as a real political menace. Having survived the threat of parliamentary attacks thanks to Charles's protection, Buckingham finally died by the assassin's knife in 1628. James would never have allowed Buckingham the level of power and influence which brought him down.

But the homosexual issue means that Buckingham has remained associated with James; and homosexuality has been a major factor in creating the idea of James's court as sleazy and corrupt. So it must be emphasized that neither in Scotland nor in England were the king's sexual proclivities of as much interest in his day as they later became. And the ‘corruption’ turns mainly on three episodes: the Overbury murder, which was not a homosexual scandal, and the accounts of two occasions when court entertainment went badly wrong, being swamped by drink; the first was in 1606, when James's brother-in-law Christian IV, king of Denmark—a notorious soak—came to visit, the second in 1618, when the king, grumpy and unwell, spoiled the performance of that year's court masque, and stumped off to bed, whereupon his courtiers, no doubt heartily glad to see the back of him, turned over-enthusiastically to the feasting and the drinking. It hardly amounts to ‘the’ corrupt court. There was, of course, corruption; how could there not have been? The councillors in prison in 1618–19 for financial corruption, chief among them the countess of Somerset's father, the disgraced lord treasurer Thomas Howard, earl of Suffolk, the downfall of the monopolists and no less a person than Sir Francis Bacon in 1621, and even Lionel Cranfield in 1624, all testify to the problems inherent in the factional politics and the intense rivalry for advancement and advantage in the early modern court. But the very fact that men did come to grief in that court indicates that it was not wholly out of control. Nor was it a problem confined only to the English court. It was the additional dimension of the king's favourites, in England far more than in Scotland, which skewed the picture of that court, to a quite unwarranted extent.

Like James himself, all his favourites were married; all had children. The king showed a lot of affection for the wives and children, as he did for his own wife and children. Even if the love between James and Anne had worn thin, by the standards of early modern arranged royal marriages, relations between them remained remarkably good, at least well into the first decade of the seventeenth century and even to some extent in the years before her death in 1619. As for his ‘sweet boys’, Steenie and Baby Charles, at the end of his life James's letters to them took on a sugary sentimentality which reads unpleasantly by modern standards and, much more to the point, reads very differently from his earlier correspondence (Letters of James VI and I, 388–422). This did not mean that he had lost his political grip. But it does suggest, as do his late literary works, an ageing king becoming over-emotional as the confidence with which he had ruled his kingdoms began to fail him.

Wormald's emphasis appears to be strongly on the idea that James's sexuality simply is not all that important, and that whatever the nature of James's feelings for his favorites, they also served his political ends.

Here's what the article on Somerset, by Alastair Bellany, says on the question:

The exact nature of [Carr's] personal relationship with James remains difficult to assess. Carr enjoyed constant and unique access to the king's person, day and night, at Whitehall and at the hunt. The king, it was reported, would pinch Carr's cheek in public, smooth his clothes, and gaze at him adoringly, even while talking to others. Although historians disagree about whether the relationship was sexual the intensity of the king's love is evident in at least one of his few surviving letters to Carr.

That on Buckingham, article by Roger Lockyer:

[Pembroke and Abbot's] efforts were crowned with success in April 1615, when Villiers was not only appointed gentleman of the bedchamber but was also knighted by James and given an annual pension of £1000. Later that year, in August, he and the king occupied the same bed at Farnham Castle, where the king was on progress. Sharing a bed was not uncommon in the early seventeenth century, and did not necessarily imply physical intimacy. Yet there was every indication that the relationship between the king and Villiers had entered a new phase, and that the days of Somerset's favour were numbered...

James continued to delight in the company of his new favourite, whom he called affectionately Steenie, a diminutive of Stephen, since St Stephen, according to the Bible, had a face like an angel. On 6 January 1617—the customary time for new year's gifts—James elevated Viscount Villiers to the earldom of Buckingham, and in the following month he was sworn of the privy council. Just under a year later, on 1 January 1618, James created Buckingham a marquess. The king made no secret of his feelings for his favourite. On the contrary, in September 1617 he declared before his privy councillors that ‘he loved the Earl of Buckingham more than any other man’ and that they should not regard this as a defect in his nature. After all, ‘Jesus Christ had done the same as he was doing … for Christ had his John and he had his George’ (Documentos ineditos para la historia de España, 1936–45, 1.101–2).

That on Lennox, by Rosalind K. Marshall:

The young king was entranced with his charming, sophisticated 37-year-old cousin. Starved as he had been of affection throughout his childhood, James revelled in Aubigny's kindly attention. Here at last was a relative of his own, sensitive, cultured, and perceptive, who treated him as an adult, discussing theology and politics and poetry with him, respecting his views, and nurturing his self-confidence. James was overjoyed...

The nature of their relationship has been the subject of much speculation, and from the start there have been allegations that Lennox introduced James not only to French poetry but also to homosexuality. According to one Scottish chronicler, ‘His majesty having conceived an inward affection to the Lord d'Aubigny, entered in great familiarity and quiet purposes with him’, while the church ministers accused the duke of setting out ‘to draw the king to carnal lust’ (ibid., 36).

‘I have such extreme regret that I desire to die rather than to live, fearing that that has been the occasion of your no longer loving me’, Lennox had told James in his last letter (CSP Scot., 1581–3, 223). However, it would be a mistake to read too much into the often extravagant language of the sixteenth-century courtier. Lennox's evident affection for his lonely young cousin brought him a glittering career, but there is no cause to think that he deliberately exploited the king's adolescent sexuality for his own benefit. Whatever James's later sexual preferences, it is not unusual for a young adolescent to hero-worship a handsome and accomplished older man, and it may be that, closely related by blood as they were, they shared a genuine sense of affinity. It was undeniably a personal tragedy for them both when their mutually rewarding friendship evoked the bitter enmity of the Scottish courtiers and led to their final separation.

At any rate, the general consensus of these various articles would seem to be that, well, we aren't terribly sure of anything. Wormald seems to say that his feelings for his favorites were at least "homoerotic," but not necessarily homosexual. None of the other articles goes further than this. This seems to be about as far as we can (and should) go. john k 23:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a silly argument. The "major minority" says that James is a homosexual. Most people would just go "ok" and go back to their lives. Coston wrote a book refuting this "major minority." If I said that Elvis was still alive and got a following and became a "major minority" one would naturally conclude that most of the general population would not agree and also would not be vocal about this because it doesn't effect them. When a minority says that King James is a homosexual one would naturally conclude that most of the general population would not agree and also would not be vocal about this because it doesn't effect them. A critic of a minority will usually be a smaller minority, because who is going to bother with such rubbish anyhow. We know Elvis is dead. We know the King of England was married with many children wrote books condemning homosexuality and effeminates, and was hated and slandered by many different groups. Most see these facts and simply conclude that James wasn't gay. Thus my point is that most agree that he was not gay but few vocalize it because it is mostly self explanatory. A homosexual is a person who has relations with men only. The correct terminology is bisexual. The whole logic is silly. Coston may well be the voice of the silent majority. Also scandal sells, so to say that well thought out material like Coston’s is unimportant is wrong. The sensationalized press and books authors and sellers love this type of hype. Coston's link is a seeming minority who supports the views of the majority.

I suppose Steve Erwin had sex with animals because he "loved" animals? Same logic used here. But who would believe a silly argument like that? And if an ungrounded argument like that had a serious rebuttal - it should be considered. Even if it was just a link. Potters house 07:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What "majority" rejects the idea that James was homosexual? How can you possibly substantiate that? The vast "majority" has no idea. Of those who have looked at the subject, a clear majority have suggested that, at the least, James had a homoerotic attachment to some of his favorites (particularly Buckingham). Whether or not there were actually physical sexual relationships is unclear. The fact that James was married and had children is entirely irrelevant. So did Oscar Wilde. Most of the supposed arguments against James's homosexuality currently in the article are nonsense. On the other hand, I think the case for James's homosexuality is not as strong as other parts of the article would suggest. Basically, we have fairly limited sources, and, such as they are, they aren't really sufficient to say for sure one way or the other. James's statements about his favorites seem highly suggestive of homoerotic attraction, but to assert actual homosexual relationships on this basis seems problematic. That James was homosexual (or, rather, that he was sexually attracted to other men, or, more strongly, was involved in sexual relationships with other men) seems a reasonable inference, but there isn't anything more than circumstantial evidence (if that) to back it up. The problem comes in when people view this question not as a simple question of facts and evidence, but as part of an ideological tug of war, where the evidence that James was homosexual is a priori found to be false because it conflicts with people's religious views with respect to the version of the Bible that James authorized (for some reason or other - I'm not sure why James can't have both commissioned a good version of the Bible and have engaged in homosexual acts - David is the ideal Biblical king, but his behavior with respect to Bathsheba and Uriah was highly dishonorable to a much greater extent than any indiscretions one can attribute to James and Buckingham.) john k 12:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, while I don't necessarily agree completely with Potters House, the use of the term majority was based on WP:NPOV - extract below relating to viewpoints:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Addhoc 13:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that in this case the basic definitions here are problematic. I would say that the majority position on James's sexuality is something along the lines of "The evidence is ambiguous at best, but there is considerable evidence that James, at least, had homoerotic attractions to certain of his male favorites, particularly Buckingham." This is the viewpoint taken for granted, I think, by the ODNB extracts I quoted above. Note Wormald's comment that I bolded, in particular, which puts the debate as between those who attribute active homosexual activities to James and those who contend that his attractions for his favorites were homoerotic without being sexual. If somebody had access to some good recent biographies of James (or Buckingham, or Somerset, or Lennox), that would go a long way towards substantiating this. john k 14:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if anything, the mainstream sources are slightly less decisive than your summary, so I would change "at least" to "almost certainly". Otherwise, I agree with your comments. Addhoc 15:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

From where I'm living (near Edinburgh) James 1st is really James VI of Scotland. Not to give him this title in the top line is very unpoliticaly correct. How does one muster the support to have this added/changed? Technically he is referred to the land of his birth as James VI and 1st.

I whole-heartedly concur! Brendandh 02:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was quite incensed when clicking on "James VI of Scotland" brought me to a page titled "James I of England"... Should I be bold and just move this, and if so what should the title be? I'm thinking "James VI of Scotland, I of England", but there's probably a protocol for these things I'm missing. Ruaraidh-dobson 18:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it or did it not bring you to a page about the person you were looking for? Was that person or was he not James I of England? The article makes it quite clear that James Stuart held both titles - there must be more constructive work to be done on it than making petty political points about its headline. -- Ian Dalziel 19:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it's not a question of 'petty political points', it's a question of giving an accurate balanced opinion taking into account the valid views of an accurate minority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.105.232 ( talk • contribs)

And an "accurate balanced opinion" depends on which title is quoted first, does it? -- Ian Dalziel 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres a fair argument for the article being moved to the title "James VI of Scotland, I of England" or even just "James VI of Scotland" - he was King of Scots long before he took the throne of England. siarach 18:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, however I don't think the title can be altered. If it can, it should be. This isn't a political point, one of discretion,accuracy and anti discrimination.

The usual way to handle a controversial move (which I am quite certain that this will be) is to list it on the day's WP:RM and then add a "Move Request" banner to the top of the talk page. This gives all the editors who would like to have an opinion a chance to vote on the move proposal. Usually if over 60% of the editors involved agree, the move will happen or not. Hope this helps. Prsgodd e ss187 19:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion, if I may be so bold, would be to continue discussion here, or even at the WikiProject. My two cents are: I am a Briton - not a Scot, nor an Englishman. I can, however, see the argument for remaining at the current location - despite having been King of Scots first, he is referred to primarily as of England (apart from in Scotland, where it seems the tendency for obstinacy is markedly higher in these issues) because, in the times before this devolution malarkay, the government, court, etc. of Great Britain was in London. I'm afraid it's not a case of opinions - just look at the facts. I'll be opposing any proposition of moving this page, and I'll muster all the force I can if needs be. I'll be damned if I see such falsities in any article in my field of expertise. This should not be personal; this is not England vs. Scots; this is not some chance for Scots to "claim" "their" king "back"; this is not a chance for horrid oppressive Englishmen to tread all over the poor Scots - let's just have what's right. – D B D 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that you should mention "times before this devolution malarkay", how about thinking about the times before this Union malarky? When James lived he could not have been anything other than king of Scotland and England, seperatly, becuase there was no United Kingdom for him to be king of. He was king of England in England and king of Scotland in Scotland. -- Philbarker 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this I know - the kingdoms were separate, but they were united in a personal union under James, who himself so his kingdoms as such. The way I see it, the personal union under him was the start of great things for the Isles - where would we be now if Scotland and England & Wales were separate? Just think about it. – D B D 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have a discussion on the advantages (or otherwise) on the dissolution of the Union. Simply, "James VI of Scotland" doesn't figure in the page title, and it should. The title is only partially accurate and if you believe in treating ethnic minority's fair (and the Scots are an ethnic minority) then due consideration should be given to their feelings. It is true that in law Scotland doesn't exist as a separate state and neither does England. Neither the Scots or the English have their own passports and the concept of 'nationality' doesn't exist in British Law (citation- Readers Digest Book of Scottish Law). This isn't the place either to discuss the merits of Britishness. However the fact is that the Scots are recognised by themselves as a nation and they should not be discriminated against. A number of the arguments being listed here are bordering on racial discrimination. Let the title be changed and live in peace.

I agree that "James VI of Scotland" should be part of the title, I think it is innacurate not to. I find it strange that the first line of the text refers to him as "James VI and I", the title above his picture refers to him as "James VI and I" and yet the title of the article is simply "James I of England". Surley this is both confusing and innacurate. I for one would support a change. I agree that it is not an England vs Scots issue, but I believe that it is about being accurate and avoiding confusion. Especially over such an important historical figure. Alisdair37 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think the intro is confusing. I learnt about him at school as James VI who was also James I after the union of the crowns - and I'm English. I would support a move to James VI of Scotland or the amendment of the intro to cover both scenarios better. I think the latter is going to be less argumentative, so to fit into the current naming we could go with

James I of England (also James VI of Scotland) (James Stuart) ( June 19, 1566 – March 27, 1625) was King of Scots, King of England, and King of Ireland. He ascended to the throne in Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567, when he was only one year old. Regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1581. ^[1] On 24 March 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England, Elizabeth I, who died without issue. ^[2] He then ruled England, Scotland and Ireland for 22 years, until his death at the age of 58. ^[3]

Thoughts? Regan123 07:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think something needs changing, as going straight from the title "James I of England" to "James VI and I" is confusing. I suggest starting with his "name" - James Stuart, and I'll be bold and try it out on the actual page. Carcharoth 11:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this address your concerns? Carcharoth 11:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)How about a more accurate title being: James VI of Scotland (James 1st of England).

This article is STILL not correctly titled. "Jamie Saxt o' Scots" should be recognised as such in this page's title. I will change to James VI of Scotland and I of England shortly, any objections? Brendandh 01:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't you dare. There are clear naming conventions ( here, bullet 4) and your move will simply be speedily reverted. There have been many, many, long and boring discussions on this issue before, and yet the Jameses remain at their current title. I strongly suggest you respect that. If you want to write a Scots-perspective article, it may be more welcome at the Scots 'paedia. However, as it's still wikipaedia, I doubt such POV would be permitted. D B D 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean move it and fix all the links to it, no objections at all from me. -- Ian Dalziel 12:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I see no rational in titling him "of England" alone when I'm sure he never did. -- Escape Orbit 18:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Do we have to have Henry IV of France and III of Navarre, Charles XIII of Sweden and II of Norway, Louis XIII of France and II of Navarre, William IV of the United Kingdom and I of Hanover, Charles III of Spain and VII of Naples, and Philip II of Castile and I of Portugal, Aragon, Valencia, Naples, Sicily, and Sardinia, too? This kind of thing is always special pleading by Scots. There's any number of comparable cases, and unless you want to propose a general rule, we shouldn't make special exceptions. john k 05:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well were any of them popularly known as such? Where as James was known as James VI and I Colonel Goth 19:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the article and I don't have a problem wit it as is. SECisek 05:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day the title of the article is basically wrong!It should include Scotland, there is no argument. The fact he was the scottish King who took over the English throne lends weight to the title being King James VI of Scotland and 1 of England. Quite simple.

Quite simple. And also quite wrong. D B D 10:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. James VI of Scotland (1st of England)- tell the editors the change should be made and stop this argument! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.164.33 ( talk) 23:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think this is an excellent article. Johncmullen1960 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What was his native language? Had English become the main language of Scottish politics at the time? Were Inglis and the various Gaelic languages still in common usage? I was just wondering if language would have been a barrier to ruling both countries? If the Scottish parliament wasn't speaking English at the time, could that have helped to delay the Act of Union for another century after James? Thanks! Boris B 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Inglis/English with a unique accent, I'd say. His mother probably spoke French as her native language. Gàidhlig would not have been the language of the royalty at all, I don't think. Ben-w 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Inglis/Lowland Scots would probably have been his native language. As for the main language of Scottish politics this would not yet have been English English but still Lowland Scots. The last Gaelic-speaking monarch was his great-grandfather James IV. siarach 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

"On the other hand, James’ paranoia over witchcraft eventually contributed, during the Parliamentary period, to the appointment of Matthew Hopkins, known as the Witch-finder General, and the execution of many people, mostly women, often for no greater crime than being widowed and owning a cat."

This sounds like Blackadder. Hopkins was active in 1646 by which time James was very dead.-- 86.20.247.36 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anything you say contradicts the article. 1646 would be parliamentary period, as stated. Attitude's of some people can eventually contribute to events after their death. -- Philbarker 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of starting something unpleasant, again, I wish to point out that the well-intentioned denials that James was sexually involved with men has resulted in a huge amount of referenced material in order to prove the point, which no doubt it does. If one excludes the intro, there is pprecisely 1/2 as much space and far more references devoted to James' sex life than all the other aspects of his life put together.

We all know that wikipedia articles have a desired length. This one probably exceeds it already.

This means that if someone wants to expand and reference significant aspects of James's life (other then who he slept with) there is no room to do so. Since all this interesting info has been gathered and written, my suggestion is that it is moved to a separate ppage James I's relationships. This follows the pattern of Leonardo da Vinci's relationships which likewise had swamped the main article.

The fact that these section grow disproportionally is not the sign of an agenda on the part of some writers; it is an effort to prove those facts for which there is a great deal of evidence and for which some people have contrary evidence or simply find impossible to accept.

What I want to see here is a sufficient amount of documentation for James' relationship with Elizabeth I, the events of the Catholic uprising and his response to it etc etc etc.

-- Amandajm 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I created a new article and moved most of the content there. I had to delete many sentences that repeated things above. I think the Legacy section could be trimmed, too, because it is of less interest than the rest of the article. The Criticism and revisionism section is also excessive, and could be incorported, where appropriate, into the rest of the article. Brainmuncher 06:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article:

It was said of him in the streets, "Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen" (Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus), ...

They were speaking Latin, "in the streets"? Hehe. 70.20.136.170 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Viva regina Jacobus! You're right: it is street Latin, for "regina Jacobus" is ungrammatical, if my pitiful education serves me correctly. Brainmuncher 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a PhD student with a First Class degree in history and I'd like to know why the academic controversy about his birth I added has been deleted. If on grounds of length then fair enough but it's not proper for a double-referenced point to be removed without comment. Edit - seems to be back

Perhaps it is because King James is editing the article himself! Did anyone check whether his coffin was nailed shut? Brainmuncher 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed that, but I must say that I don't agree with its inclusion. The fact that it is verifiable isn't the main point because verifiability is only the threshold: beyond that we have to take into account weight of importance and majority academic opinion. In addition, your original edit was in my opinion long-winded, out of proportion, and included one spelling mistake ("resemblence") and one grammatical mistake ("wrapping"). (Someone has tidied it up.) At best, the point is worth a footnote, but it seems to me nonsense. James was not placed in the custody of the Earl of Mar until March 1567, by which time he was nine months old. The Earl of Mar only had one son, and it's not as if his wife had children to spare, let alone one that happened to be exactly the same age as James. (Also his regents, his grandfather and uncle, would not have connived at the supplanting of their own bloodline.)

By the way, I'm not willing to take into account your credentials on this (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification), which are irrelevant to the merits of the edit. I feel you are being disingenuous about the "academic controversy" surrounding his birth, as none of my books on James mentions it (Willson refers dismissively to Catholic whispers that Rizzio was the father, and that's all). Your two references—Gent, Frank (1944) "The Coffin in the Wall", Chambers Journal, September/October 1944 and Lownie, Andrew (1992) "The Edinburgh Literary Guide", Canongate Press, Edinburgh, pp.4-5—do not strike me as serious sources relevant to contemporary scholarship (there are sources and sources). In my opinion, the continued presence of your addition in this featured article amounts to a carbuncle. I'm not going to cut it, though; the whole article may need to go to FAR before long, where all the information can then be reassessed on its merits. qp10qp 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are addressing 89.240.190.163. I don't have anything to do with the above. The anonymous IP, however, is only responsible for one of the offending edits; I don't know where the rest come from. The clever way to get rid of the conjecture is to remove it when no one's looking! This will save you hauling the article to the FAR, and then putting it in front a panel of judges. Brainmuncher 13:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My dearest Brain, I certainly wasn't addressing you, especially not after such an excellent joke. I agree, there's far more wrong with the article than the child-in-the-wall fantasy. It would actually do the article good to go to FAR, where it would attract not just judges but new editors. However, I'm not going to bring it there myself (for the time being), as I would probably then find myself chiefly responsible for referencing and re-editing it, for which I haven't time at the moment. (I wouldn't chop the info in question out without discussing it fully here first, though I might move it to a footnote.) qp10qp 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was going to nominate the article for a FAR myself, but I didn't feel like supplying a reason. I'll leave it to you, when you're ready. I am finished with the article now. It is shorter than when I started with it. Brainmuncher 06:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

i think this is rubbish!

What do editors think of it? With all respect to the person/people who placed it there, I think it's unnecessary. It's also rather sloppily done and unclear, and Prince Henry is completely missing from it. Worst is the Anne Marie of Orléans "portrait", which I'm suspecting is an April Fool's joke. I'm all for deleting this whole section. Any views? qp10qp 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazing that his eldest son is missing from it! I agree it should be removed. I've checked the pictures are in the articles, and added them where they weren't, except the strange faceless picture. I've queried that at WP:AN. I'll leave the image gallery there for a few days of FAR, and then remove it. Carcharoth 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Its the first clear descendants that 8 years olds have been able to follow compared to the normal issue table. Yes there needs to be more done, but I am trying to make it so people as well as kids can more easily follow the lines of descent and ancestors, like I am trying to help make it interesting for people not normally into history. Would appreciate more clarity on the sloppiness (What is the slopperly done? can you show me how you would have done it?) so I can improve it. So now I know your experts you will be able to BOLDLY add in Prince Henry? :-) -- Nexus5 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The sloppiness lay in little stray lines sticking out of the framework, in missing relatives, in different sized images, and in the inclusion of one blurry image. Having said that, I am all in favour of your building this gallery. I don't think it should go in this article; but there's certainly a place for it on Wikipedia, and this article should link to it. qp10qp 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

After reading Personal relationships of James I of England, I need a reality check. Was this edit, where I removed vandalism, correct? And can you add refs from your books to that article as well? Carcharoth 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I did mention this at WP:FAR, but forgot to look myself. I've been randomly looking through older versions, and some good material is there. Try this one for example. I'm now off to find the version that got promoted. Carcharoth 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And the handy "Article Milestones" template above tells me that this is the promoted version (or near enough, anyway). Carcharoth 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

A few questions:

• I wrote a little condensed summary of James's titles based on a consideration of the uselessness of the succession boxes to give the context, and came up with this:

  James I, King of Great Britain, of the House of Stuart was born Duke of Albany and Duke of Rothesay in 1566, a year before being crowned (as James VI) King of Scots and Lord of the Isles in 1567. Thirty-six years later, in 1603, he was crowned (as James I) King of England and King of Ireland, uniting all three countries in a personal union. In Scotland, he succeeded his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, and in England he succeeded his mother's half-sister Elizabeth I. The personal union as King of Great Britain was continued by his second son and successor, Charles I. Both James and his father Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley and King-consort of Scotland, were Dukes of Albany, James from birth until he became King of Scotland a year later, and his father from when he married James's mother, Mary, in 1565 until his murder two years later in 1567 at the age of 21, less than a year after the birth of their son James. The next Duke of Albany after James was James's second son, Charles. James was Duke of Rothesay from birth as the heir apparent to the Scottish throne, until he became King of Scotland. The previous male heir apparent and Duke of Rothesay had been James Stewart, the eldest legitimate son of James's maternal grandfather James V of Scotland (1512-1542). James Stewart died in 1541 just before his first birthday. The next Duke of Rothesay after James was Henry Stuart, James's eldest son who died of typhoid fever at the age of eighteen.

  However, this needs checking, especially the Duke of Albany bit, as I saw one (unreliable) source that said that James was still Duke of Albany even after he became King of Scotland - can anyone find a reliable source on this?

He was not Duke of Albany until after the death of his father when he was 8 months old or so. He was born Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, I believe. When his father died in February 1567, he became in addition Duke of Albany, Earl of Ross, and Lord Ardmannoch. These latter titles merged into the crown and thus became extinct upon his succession a few months later, while the other titles, which were automatically associated with the eldest son of the monarch, went into remission (or something - I can't recall the exact term for what they did - they weren't extinct, but nobody held them). As I understand it, after this point his only title was "King of Scots," until 1603 when he also inherited the titles of "King of England[, France,] and Ireland." He used the title "King of Great Britain and Ireland, to indicate his unification of all of Great Britain under his rule, but it had no specific significance. When James's eldest son Henry was born in 1594, he automatically acquired the Rothesay titles, and his second son Charles was created Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross, and Lord Ardmannoch shortly after his birth. When James inherited the English throne, Henry also became Duke of Cornwall, and was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester in 1610 (although he had been called Prince of Wales since 1603). Charles was created Duke of York, in addition to his Scottish titles, in 1605. When his elder brother died in 1612, he also became automatically Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, &c. In 1616, he was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, although, again, I believe he had been called Prince of Wales since 1612. The York and Albany titles merged into the crown and became extinct when Charles ascended the throne in 1625, and the other titles went back into dormancy until the birth of a male heir to Charles. Does that clarify? john k 06:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• The second question concerns his children, two of which were unnamed. Is it possible to find a source to confirm whether or not they were stillborn/died soon after birth? Or at least to say that this is probably given that they were unnamed.
• Finally, did he have other titles, like Prince and Great Steward of Scotland? That was missed out in the succession boxes, which is why I missed it out above.

Any more on all this would be appreciated. Carcharoth 13:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well James I/VI mother was NOT half-sister of Elizabeth 1 of England. You appear to be confusing Mary, Queen of Scots, with Queen Mary of England who was Elizabeth I's half-sister ( both daughters of Henry VIII by his first and second wives respectively ). They are not the same Queen Mary. James VI/I claim through descent to the English throne after the children of Henry VIII failed to have any heirs, was because his great-grandmother was Henry VIII's sister Margaret Tudor. Eregli bob 12:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. You are quite right. Lucky I didn't put that in the article. Would you mind checking the article (heavily revamped by qp10qp) and seeing what you think? Carcharoth 12:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with "King of Great Britain", or "personal union as King of Great Britain"; personal union and "King of Great Britain" are two different things. "King of Great Britain" was a title James chose himself, but it wasn't statutory and parliament never confirmed it. Technically, he ruled over three kingdoms: Scotland, England, and Ireland. They remained separable, as shown when Charles II was proclaimed king of Scotland. The opening of James I's article captures these distinctions well enough, I think.

As far as the Duke of Albany thing is concerned, I assume the status of the title becomes abeyant once a king ascends. The title is given to a son, but what happens to it in the meantime, I don't know. Maybe it comes and goes, like the title "Prince of Wales". I don't agree that Darnley was Duke of Albany till his death and that James was Duke of Albany from his birth, because he was born before Darnley died. My guess is that the title became available when Darnley was made king (it's a little known fact that he became king in his own right, not just king consort: no one particularly recognised the fact, but it may explain why the title of Duke of Albany became available for James). As far as this article is concerned, I don't think it's a very important matter, anyway: succession boxes can never be made quite satisfactory, I think, for many reasons. I don't think we should seek out further titles: the article is already overburdened with them, in my opinion.

I don't know about the children. No one goes into any detail, and therefore nor should we. But I think we have too many there; most books say there were four children other than the three who survived, and they otherwise speak of miscarriages—I can ref that over and over, which is all we need to do. The two unnamed ones probably don't need mentioning. We could subtitle the chart something like: "James' wife, Anne of Denmark, gave birth to seven children who survived childbirth", or something. Actually, I'd favour removing the chart format and replacing it with a plain list: then there wouldn't be gaps, as such, and the reader wouldn't prompted to ask questions about how the infants died. We could just put the dates they lived. Anything notable is mentioned in the text, after all. qp10qp 17:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great. I suspected I had a lot of this the wrong way round or just plain wrong, but your clarifications and corrections were just what was needed. Please use as little or as much as you need. The bit about Darnley being King seems important, as his article says he was king-consort - that might need correction. I'd be tempted to remove the succession boxes completely, and just briefly mention his titles at the right points in the article (I think they should all at least be mentioned - maybe in the 'style' section if nowhere else). Succession/abeyance issues can be dealt with at the articles about the titles themselves, unless the succession issue was controversial, in which case it can be mentioned here. Of course, someone will later add the succession boxes back in, but a sweepstake can be run while we wait... I agree also with your thoughts about the children and there being no need to have a table format. Ditto for the ancestors table. Now, do you feel brave enough to remove the four bloated templates at the foot of the article? :-) Carcharoth 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I also noted that Anne predeceased her husband, but that this wasn't mentioned in the article. Do your sources say what effect this had on James? Was he senile by that point? Anything about what Anne died of (though that might be more suited to here article, which doesn't mention it, than James's article)? Carcharoth 01:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saving up for a mention of the later Anne. They were holding separate courts by that time and weren't very close, it seems. No one was allowed to see her while she was dying, but an inquest found that she was "much wasted within, specially her liver".

I don't believe James became senile myself, I have to say.

I think the Darnley article does mention that he was "King of Scots", though in name only. But that would still be enough for the Albany title to change, since that would have been up to him and Mary. John Guy says that a dual monarchy was proclaimed and that Darnley even took precedence over Mary on some coins, but that Mary went back on it later, when they fell out.

I have my eye on cutting a lot of things in the lower part of the article, particular that "style" section (you don't get those in books, so why in an encyclopedia?), which can go to its own page, unless someone screams. Also the criticism and revision thing: that can all be assumed in the text now that it's becoming referenced. But I don't think we can chop the succession boxes, infernal things though they are, because they link up over many articles. Some of the titles could be inserted in the text, I suppose, but trying to research them today, I found little mention of the lesser ones in books. The authors don't seem to find them very important. qp10qp 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you want to know how James reacted to Anne's death, how about this, observed by his physician, Theodore de Mayerne:

Pain in his joints and nephritis with thick sand...continued fever, bilious diarrhoea, watery and profuse throughout the illness. Hiccoughs for several days. Aphthae all over mouth and fauces, and even the oesophagus. Fermentation of bitter humours boiling in his stomach which, effervescing by froth out of his mouth, led to ulceration of his lips and chin. Fainting, sighing, dread, incredible sadness, intermittent pulse...and a continuation of nephritis from which without any remedy having been administered, he excreted a friable calculus, as was his wont.

And they say he didn't love her. qp10qp 04:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I cut the "Styles" section. I've never seen anything like this in history books. The first bit is mainly covered in the article: the rest is fairly meaningless to me, and unreferenced. I place it here for appraisal:

==Style and arms== Formally, James was styled "James, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." (The claim to the Throne of France, which had been maintained since the reign of Edward III, was merely nominal.) By a proclamation of 1604, James assumed the style "James, King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." for non-statutory use.

James's English arms, whilst he was King of England and Scotland, were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland). James also introduced the unicorn, a symbol of Scotland, as an heraldic supporter in his armorial achievement; the other supporter remained the English lion. In Scotland, his arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); II Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland), with one of the unicorns of Scotland being replaced as a heraldic supporter by a lion.

qp10qp 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody's ever seriously questioned it before - we've even got it agreed(ish) at our style guide... D B D 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't actually understand it, to be honest. It fails on jargon, and it fails on references. Do other encyclopedias have this? If it's important, I think it should go on its own page for "Style and Arms of James I". But if not reffed first, it would be deleted (standards have gone up); all the less reason for it to survive in a Featured Article. qp10qp 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be made a lot clearer and referenced, but if you look at the articles on royalty on Wikipedia, you will find a lot of this sort of stuff, and I think it is informative to a certain extent. What do you think is the best way to present this sort of stuff? Carcharoth 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I can't ref it from my history books. If they don't bother with it, why should we? True, other monarchs' articles are lumbered with this guff, but perhaps some heraldry project stuck it in ages ago and no one bothers to challenge it. But this is FAR, where we challenge things. If it goes back in, it goes back in—I won't lose any sleep—but let it go back in referenced, per Wikipedia objection response. And let it be put in plain English by someone who knows what flory-counter-flory Gules are, for example (they sound like some kind of testicular gnocchi). Pictures would help, I should think. A separate page would give plenty of space for illustrations. qp10qp 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me that a separate article is best in this case. Illustrating such an article is a good idea. I found Royal Standard of Scotland (the specific lion rampant in this case, though the term has a more general meaning) and fleur-de-lis, while the harp stuff (azure a harp or, stringed argent) is simply Coat of arms of Ireland. The bit you cut already linked to heraldic supporter, and (nearly) to Unicorn#Heraldry. It should have, but failed to, link to azure, gules, or, argent, and passant and guardant. Tressure and flory are not written yet, though heraldry gives some idea what a tressure is, and Division of the field should say something about grandquarterly (which is an extension of quarterly). Obviously, getting original pictures of James's heraldic stuff will be nearly impossible, but it could be fun. Hopefully DBD will be able to say more about all this, as he mentioned a style guide. Carcharoth 01:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also have a look at George VI of the United Kingdom#Other information to see how this is handled in a featured article currently on the main page. The succession boxes are there, but are rather useless in my opinion. No heraldic stuff, I notice, but the style is there. Also George VI of the United Kingdom/Honours and appointments seems to have been intended as a subpage, though of course it isn't really a subpage (as that feature is disabled in article space). Carcharoth 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How do the editors of this article feel about a timeline? I have in mind a fairly extensive one, based on this article. The extensive one should probably be a separate article, but would a short one be appropriate in the main article? Carcharoth 13:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of them; they get messy because usually three or four important things happen all at once and need to be squashed in (think 1603-4 )and then there are gappy bits with nothing in them: in other words, such diagrams don't do clusters well. History books, if anything, use simple lists of main events, with years to the left; these are elegant, in my opinion, the form dictated by the events themselves rather than by time. Wikipedia articles don't tend to do those though. Also, the plainer and simpler an article the better, I think.

On which point:

There's a clodding great Stuart infobox half way down the page, for some reason. What do you think about removing it? First of all, the clodding great succession boxes, which I am resigned to, will take readers to all these monarchs, and they are topped by a "House of Stuart" link, surely sufficient if they want the job lot in one. Having this Stuart box where it is is illogical anyway: readers might look to the top of a page for an infobox or to the bottom for a succession box, but who is going to look in the middle of an article for a dynasty box? And do people actually want to check who Queen Anne's son was, for example, when they are reading about James I? One might rationalise this box on the grounds that it is used throughout the Stuart articles, but in fact very different versions occur (look at the one in Mary II, for example: do they only go forward?). Finally, this box represents the third blasted time in the article where we list James's children. But why those paticular four? It seems to me we have to list either the three that survived infancy or the whole seven. And if we list the whole seven, shouldn't we proceed down the template and list all Stuart children that survived infancy, information I doubt the average reader is interested in half way through reading an article about James I. (In that regard, anyway, the most interesting and pertinent detail is missing, which is that George I was the grandson of James I's daughter Elizabeth of Bohemia, which is how he came to sprout out of Germany onto the English throne; but we can't add that because he's not a Stuart and so not boxworthy.) qp10qp 14:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Stuart box should go, I agree. I'll remove it, and we can see what happens. The link to House of Stuart should be enough. The George I bit is probably worth mentioning in the "legacy" section. Or at least making sure that George I mentions why he "sprouted out of Germany"! I see your points about how a timeline is difficult, and I agree that using the "history book" format would be nice, though some horizontal timelines can get around the gaps by using lots of pictures as illustrations. I'll have a go anyway, and pop a copy on here for review. Did you have any thoughts on my comments in the preceding section? Carcharoth 14:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Horizontal is better, certainly. All the parliaments should go on, though they might seem dull: James and Parliament really is the big story of his reign, in my opinion, though they're not timelinefriendly (some stretch across years, so that would need to be thought out). Death of Salisbury, 1612, is also a big turning point. I mention these things, because there's always a danger that a timeline may concentrate on externals. qp10qp 15:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the line itself could be coloured when parliaments were sitting, and left white when not? Works in England, but Scottish parliaments were less powerful and not worth a place on a timeline, on the whole, in my opinion. qp10qp 15:26, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the House of Stuart infobox. It was in fact malformed. It was missing a "james1" parameter which makes it much neater and relevant to James I. The result is at right. My feeling is that the only useful thing is the coat of arms, as the children are already mentioned. Where shall we put the coat of arms? Carcharoth 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha, yes, that's much more logical. Well worked out. Yes, that's much better. The coat of arms is nice, and much more helpful than the verbal version. I'd be happy to see this version go back in, with or without children. qp10qp 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question is, "where?" I tried several places, but it doesn't really seem to fit anywhere. Ideally it would go inside the infobox, but that is beyond my technical skills. Do you have a template wizard you can magic up? Also, see this and this. Carcharoth 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

What about in "Proclaimed King of England"? Since that's when the combined arms would have been created. qp10qp 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Carcharoth 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

James I of England#Church in Scotland is stubby and unreferenced. The Children and Ancestors sections are unreferenced. The See Also links should be incorporated into the article somehow, except the descendants one. Carcharoth 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got to the church bit yet; it's on the list. And I am about to ref the children, because I have some different dates for a couple of them in my books. Then I'll finally get to ancestors (is ancestors the right word? I don't think of my parents as my ancestors). Then I have to look at omissions...some stuff on late reign in Scotland needs adding, and also something about Ireland and maybe about Jacobean culture. qp10qp 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and a little more on Anne and Henry.

By the way, the reason I had left the ages of death out for the time being was because of things like this: "Robert Stuart, Duke of Kintyre (18 February 1602 – 27 May 1602). Died aged 3 months". Willson says 18 January, the same as in Robert's own article, which would make four months. Unfortunately, Alan Stewart has Robert being born in 1601, so it looks like I'm in for some tedious research on this one. Stewart also says Sophia was born in 1607, drat him. qp10qp 16:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit more on Anne and Henry, yes, or rather James's relationship with them. I'd also say his relationship with his surviving daughter and his younger son is something that would be nice to get hold of if possible. He was close to Henry, as was Charles - how did Henry's death affect them personally. What was James's relationship like with Charles? Why did James and Anne drift apart? Did Henry's death, or the infant deaths, affect them? Of course, much of this personal stuff won't have survived, unless we have speculations or diaries. And we don't hear much about Elizabeth. Her Wikipedia article says she was named after Elizabeth I, and that the Gunpowder conspirators planned to put her on the throne. But then she was carted off to Germany at the age of 16 as wife of Frederick V. Wonder how that affected the family. I suppose that is what daughters of kings had to put up with in those days... Carcharoth 17:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's plenty on all of that, as there is on most things on James, because he was forever writing. The difficulty is keeping it brief because it's very contradictory. For example, James missed Henry's and Anne's funeral, and Anne missed Henry's. Henry and James didn't get on. Henry and Elizabeth were close but she wasn't allowed to visit him during his last illness because it might have been contagious. Apparently he was calling for her on his deathbed. He died when Frederick V was in England to marry Elizabeth, and she was carted away to the Palatinate shortly after, at the age of sixteen, poor kid. So James and Anne lost two of their three children at once. Elizabeth remained very important though, because Charles was thought frail: after James's death she became heir presumptive.

I have three refs for Sophia dying in 1607, not 1606, so I am going to change it. qp10qp 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Pity it is contradictory. Wonder where I got the impression that James and Henry were close - I think I conflated it from the bit about Henry's death being a "tragedy for the nation". Anyway, on another matter entirely, I was following some links, and I noticed that you linked in two of your refs to John Chamberlain (at the time of writing, this linked to the material now at John Chamberlain (sculptor))) - I thought, "hmm, that's probably not the right one!" So I created John Chamberlain (letter writer) and John Chamberlain (disambiguation). Dunno if your letter writer is worth a separate article (maybe you can expand it slightly so it doesn't get thrown to the AfD wolves?), or whether you want to explain that particular source in your references or notes section, but that book of his letters sounds very interesting. Are there collections of James's publications/letters? Carcharoth 20:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Smart work. I didn't check that Chamberlain link, but now I come to think of it, I remember coming across a need for an article on him before. He's very important: you can't read anything on Jacobean times without the author quoting Chamberlain. One thing I like about Chamberlain is that he always seems very smart and not so far off modern verdicts on what was going on. Yes there are books of James's letters and literally volumes of his books of writings. I haven't got access to any. If I quote James, I ref to the secondary source page where the quote was given. Alan Stewart is stuffed with quotes, which is why I'm using him.

I'm getting to end of my tether with the birth and death of little Sophia. Yes, I have three good refs for 1607. But Google Books is turning up lots for 1606 as well, though they tend to be in older or less specialised books. I am starting to think this is just an Old Style-New Style issue, in which case 1607 will be correct because you adapt to Gregorian style for modern histories; so now I'm wondering about the rest of the children's dates (Charles I know about, because he is always traditionally updated to 1600); how reliable are they? But the worst thing is that the refs in my edit only cover the year and not the dates and times Sophia was alive. At the moment I cannot find any sources that say, with us, that she lived for six days. I can find sources that say she lived for under a day or for two days, that she was born and died on 21 June, but also that she was born on 22 June and died on 23. It's a right mess, because if my theory that the 1606 date was unadapted from old style sources is correct, then the exact dates would have to change too, because adjustments are not just to the year but to the days. In short, the historians are letting me down; and the reason they are letting me down, frankly, is because this puny matter doesn't interest them. I might go and ask at Citing Sources what to do (and I haven't even started looking into little Robert yet, whose dates are even more screwed up). I may have to resort to a weasel formulation along the lines of "Born in June 1607 and died shortly afterwards". qp10qp 21:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Sorry to hear that tracking down exact dates for children who died in infancy is difficult. Maybe add "and later historians couldn't be bothered to record the exact dates, as sadly, in those days, infant mortality was high and unless they were given a title and whatnot, not much more then their name was passed on to posterity, and in the case of the unnamed, not even that. <cue rambling thoughts on mortality>" - ahem, well, not quite like that, but you could throw in a standard infant mortality thing. Carcharoth 22:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and so's not to get too off-topic, would you be able to stick John Chamberlain (letter writer) on any list of articles you might have sources to expand? It really could do with a little bit more fleshing out, and maybe a nice salacious quote from a letter! Carcharoth 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll flesh it out when I've finished ploddding through this thing. I've always intended to read Chamberlain, so I'll use this as an opportunity to do so. qp10qp 00:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I swapped this picture ( Image:JamesIofEngland.jpg) for another one. I sense this one is a derivative of the picture in the infobox. By all means disagree. qp10qp 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They look like different pictures to me, but as there is no information on the other one, then we shouldn't really use it. I've tidied up the other pictures as best I could, giving artist and date(s) where known. Carcharoth 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly one of a set of derivatives of something; there are other versions about. I always hate it when we're given no artist information because sometimes copies were made much later. qp10qp 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

File:James I of England Young.jpg

I popped over to Commons and found this picture. Any idea what is going on there?? Carcharoth 07:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is in the national portrait gallery, attributed to Rowland Lockey. I'm a bit suspicious about it because he was an English painter, and I don't know how he would have got access to James at that time. Also he did a double portrait of Mary and James, who never met after she left Scotland. I suspect he based this portrait on paintings of Mary as a child by Clouet, which Mary may have shown him. qp10qp 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right. Might be worth copying those comments to the picture talk page. I'm confused now, is it James or Mary, and if it is meant to be James but modelled secondhand on Mary, I'd put big warning signs on the picture to stop people being misled by the current title. Carcharoth 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But the story of Mary, in England, getting a painter to do a picture of the son she would never see again, especially in a pre-photographic age. Aah. That is heart-breaking. :-( Carcharoth 13:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, should we try and get a copy of this picture? Carcharoth 07:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also some great pictures here (as well as some interesting snippets of information). I love the memorial picture with the young King praying, and the instructions to avenge his father! Carcharoth 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the one of the young James on Commons is so low res, and as an art lover I'm always disappointed when I click a picture and get a small image (it's true of the Somer we have in the infobox, too). The Somer you mention is one of the two great portraits of James, in my opinion: he looks slightly clownish and lost inside that finery; the other is the Mytens that we have of James in later life—it's a profound portrait, in my opinion, and I can really imagine James from it. qp10qp 13:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, so we should definitely try and get a copy of the 1620 Somer. Also, do you know where we can get out own scans of the artworks in question? I still really like the one at the geocities website I linked to, as it gives an idea of contemporary reaction to his father's murder. The author there is a Jenny Wormald "C.E. Hodge Fellow & Tutor in Modern History, St Hilda's College, Oxford", which sounds reliable enough, though geocoties websites are rarely of this quality! I'll put a link in the external links for now, though feel free to disagree or suggest a different approach - would it be difficult to get hold of copies of those pictures, for example? Carcharoth 13:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Normally I'd question whether such a website had the rights, but it looks like it might be owned by a relation of Wormald. She's one of the most important scholars of this period for Scotland: once I've finished my basic reffing of the article, I intend to nuance it by touching in notes from her and others.

It's difficult finding good scans of pictures (I don't think bad ones are worth it). It's probably just a case of tunnelling into the bowels of Google Images until a good one from a non-Commercial site comes up. We also need to check cropping, orientation, frames, tinting, etc. because the images are free but not website additions. qp10qp 15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be cautious about over-precisely defining when James came into his majority. I've referenced pretty well everything in the article, but not that sentence in the lead which states that he came into his majority at the age of fourteen. I have not found a book which says that: they all say something slightly different to each other and tend, quite rightly I think, to blur the issue. It is blurred, for example, by the fact that Morton lost control as regent for a while and later regained it, but then not necessarily with the official title. Also by the fact that James did not seem to act as his own master when under the supervision of Lennox, though Lennox was not officially a regent. I'm still looking for a way of covering all the angles in that part of the lead. qp10qp 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear me. Is nothing simple about this story? :-) Blur away... Carcharoth 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

One thing that would make things clearer is to gives birth and death dates for the non-modern authors. That would make it clearer when the article is quoting contemporary or near-contemporary sources, as opposed to modern-day historians. Not all the named sources are linked, so I don't know which are 17th/18th century historians, and which are modern-day ones. Would you be able to check this and clarify this?

Is that important? All the sources are dated, so we know when the books were written. Why is the birth and death date of the authors significant? Insofar as there are a few "Nicolson wrote"... type quotations, they are referenced to secondary sources. In that case, the responsibility for the information devolves to the secondary sources, surely. Otherwise, we'd have to re-reference every reference; for example, instead of saying "James said so and so, Jones p 7", we'd have to say "James said so and so in such and such a letter, first published in such and such a volume, on such and such a page, in such and such a year". The reason that we don't have to do so is that the information will be traceable through the scholarly apparatus provided in the secondary source we reference. Can you give me an example of a historian who you can't tell is modern or old? We could clarify any like that, but we must beware of overdoing the trivial, a sure sign of amateurishness. qp10qp 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'll try and find specific examples to discuss. By the way, I think part of the reason is that I find it slighty tedious to go to a footnote and see "Croft" or "Jones" and then think to myself, "now, which book was that?" - and then have to scan the reference list. I've seen some articles do this differently, providing a further onwards link from the footnote to the "reference books list". See Charles Darwin for example. Would you object to something like that here? Carcharoth 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it done that way too, for example at Finnish Civil War, by adapting the Harvard Reference linking system to conventional noting. But I don't think it's generally required or particularly recommended, from the discussions I've seen. The inconvenience of looking up who wrote what is surely more than balanced by the inconvenience of increasing the awkwardness of editing. The present system is a standard one, as detailed in CMS (a guide recommended by our MoS). It has the great advantage of being extremely easy to do quickly while editing. We at least have the convenience on Wikipedia of having the book list available a few inches down the page. In a print book, we often have to turn to the back of the book to check the notes. One way to keep an eye on the references is to open another tab and just flick screens when you want to check something. However, if you want to change the system, do it (except, I beg of you, easy on the "ref name =", which will forever keep breaking since it depends on each set of references remaining intact and which does not admit of combining or variable quoting). qp10qp 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The links are broken for the Upton refs at Finnish Civil War. I see what you mean about it being difficult to maintain. I'll bin this idea. Thanks for pointing out the disadvantages. Carcharoth 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've also been adding quite a few links here and there. One I was rather unsure about was in the footnote concerning crypto-Catholicism, where you mention a Henry Howard. Given the large number of them orbiting the King, I'd be prepared to bet that I linked the wrong one. Did I get this wrong? Also, we have an article on crypto-Christianity, in case that is worth linking (though it is not about crypto-Catholicism). Carcharoth 02:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it's the right Howard (I wikilinked him elsewhere); we'll make a Jacobean historian of you yet. I too looked at the page on crypto-Christianity, but it doesn't serve. We could certainly do with a page on crypto-Catholicism, but there are so many different terms. Recusants were those who refused to attend Protestant churches, paid the fines and were prepared to go to prison. A church papist was openly a Catholic but went to church just to avoid the fines. A schismatic was by conviction a Catholic but lived as a Protestant for a quiet life. A crypto-Catholic went to Protestant Church and swore the Oath of Allegiance but attended secret mass. It's pretty difficult to tell who fell into what category. qp10qp 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Jacobean historian! I like the sound of that. Do I have to wear the funny clothes? :-) Anyway, I took the liberty of linking the terms you used, and it looks like cryto-Cathlocism is the only one missing at the moment. Carcharoth 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, schismatic is missing as well. I suppose that was too much to hope for. Carcharoth 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Trouble is, schismatic has a specialist meaning in this context. More generally, it refers to any schism in the church, of which there have been many. The ideal summary-style article would be "Catholics under James I", but it would be difficult to write because it's a nightmare of a topic. Life's too short. qp10qp 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Was checking ague, which is a redirect to malaria, and this seems to say it is malaria. If this needs blurring as well, please do so! :-) I guess gout, arthritis and dysentry are fairly obvious and should be OK. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, to me "ague" is just an old name for fever. I don't really know what "tertian ague" is, though: I noticed the redirect to malaria and decided that he was unlikely to have had malaria (not all Wikipedia directs are useful). I have changed the wikilink to a more appropriate wiktionary link. My opinion is that James probably died of one particular thing rather than suffering a ludicrous series of individual illnesses and attacks in one month. However, we are stuck with the frantic guessing of James's pompous quacks foreign physicians. (By the way, if you want a good laugh, read Mary Tofts.) qp10qp 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Dang! That is a classic!! I was involved in finding "Did You Know" tidbits for the Main Page for April Fools Day this year (eventually ended up with Serge Voronoff, though someone else did most of the work there), and that Mary Tofts article would have been perfect. To get on DYK, the article would have to be significantly expanded - do you think much more expansion is possible there? Getting back to James's personal physicians, one I came across the other day was William Harvey. From here, we have: "He was personal physician to James I (1618-25). After his and others' attempts to cure James of his fatal illness failed, he became a scapegoat for that failure amidst rumours of a Catholic plot to kill James, but was saved by the personal protection of Charles I (to whom he was also personal physician, from 1625 to 1647)." - would you have a source to back that up? Might only be relevant in his article, rather than here, but still interesting, especially the rest of it, with the famous story of Harvey looking after the royal children on the battlefield, hiding in a hedge and reading a book to them!! Even more fascinating is the story of Harvey being able to see a beating human heart in situ through someone's old chest wound, normally covered by a metal plate. Carcharoth 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've had a scout, but can't ref it. William Paddy seems to have been the physician at his bedside when he died. A dodgy geezer called Theodore de Mayerne was fussing about a bit, too. qp10qp 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LOL! "Let's poke this bit here" <screams> "Oops." <next, please!> Is the bit about Harvey being personal physician completely wrong? Carcharoth 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I picture a whole gaggle of them, one for each illness. They were all on high salaries—no wonder he was broke. They bled him dry. qp10qp 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the lead section goes off my screen. Probably needs tightening up a bit. What do you think should go? I also put cousin in there cos I thought they were cousins, but now I think it is a bit misleading, as it is something removed, which I can never work out. Can you think of a way to work in there the fact that James and Elizabeth were (distantly) related? If I remember correctly, Margaret Tudor is the link? Carcharoth 02:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

James's grandfather, James V, was Elizabeth's cousin, because her aunt, Margaret Tudor, was his mother. Therefore, Mary, Queen of Scots was the great granddaughter of Henry VII and James VI/I his great great grandson.

That's on the Stuart side.

James's grandmother, Margaret Countess of Lennox, was Elizabeth's cousin, because her aunt, Margaret Tudor, was Margaret Lennox's mother with her second husband. Margaret, Countess of Lennox, was Henry, Lord Darnley's mother, and so James was Henry VII's great great grandson on that side too.

Since the Stuarts claimed the English throne through the descent of James V and Mary, Queen of Scots, James VI/I's succession came by virtue of his being the great great grandson of Henry VII on that side.

Does that clear it up? :) qp10qp 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Urk. I think that sort of stuff is best left to Union of the Crowns, though really, some mention of why he succeeded so easily and was accepted so easily is probably needed here. Can you think of a simple way to put and source this? Carcharoth 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at shortening the lead. qp10qp 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Carcharoth 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to remove the word "cousin" because James didn't inherit his throne directly from Elizabeth but through his mother's line, going back to Henry VII. I feel that, as you say, "cousin" might mislead the reader, because James would technically be Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed, which means very little on its own, in my opinion, and would have to be explained. And in explaining that, we would end up saying that James inherited the throne through a direct line back to Henry VII anyway. qp10qp 14:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been "folding in" see also's - what a nice way to put it. I wonder what is left? External links and red-links? I wouldn't know where to begin with the external links. Can you judge which and how many to have? As for the red-links, they are, currently:

• Paulus van Somer I
• John de Critz
• Kirk o' Field
• James Hamilton of Bothwellhaugh
• Black Acts (not at List of Acts of the Scottish Parliament to 1707)
• Old Bishops' Palace
• Conrad Vorstius
• Elizabeth Stewart, Countess of Lennox
• Michael Lynch (historian)

Should be de-linked or stubs written for them. Also, it might be an idea to briefly peruse what links here (less than 2000) for: (a) tidbits of information that might be nice if you can find references; and (b) to correct any inaccuracies in other articles. Following the links to articles in other languages might be a bit much. Oh, and article size. I'm not a stickler for this myself, but what is your opinon on that? It seems a readable length to me. Carcharoth 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to address article size; it's a bit too long now, and I have some ideas for condensing bits and pieces here and there. On the other hand, I still haven't forgotten the things I promised to look into adding.

I don't actually mind there being red links in an article, because they remind people of what subjects may need an article, which is good for Wikipedia. The two that really strike me as needing articles are Konrad Vorstius and Black Acts (I wonder if the latter has been overlooked because it sounds so similar to another topic; on that list you link to, they are the acts of 1584). One of our Scandinavian editors might be able to supply something on the Old Bishops' Palace. One day I intend to write an article about the murder of Darnley, for which an article on Kirk o'Field would become essential. John de Critz is a bit tricky because I think there's a John de Critz the elder and a John de Critz the younger. I doubt there's enough on Hamilton to fill an article, as he seems to be famous for this murder and nothing else. A bit of a one-hit wonder, as it were. qp10qp 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure, so you prefer to leave it as a red-link to inspire and challenge others, rather than do a short stub article, as that will disappoint those following the link? At the least, I might add some of these links to the various lists around the place of "requested articles". Carcharoth 08:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, an article, even a good stub, is better than a red link. But I do think that a red link may help Wikipedia more, sometimes, than no link at all. It signals what might be needed. I may look at making some of these into little articles eventually, but I'm a lousy multi-tasker, so I'd better concentrate here for the moment. qp10qp 13:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was following the "what links here", and I found this. I can see that it might be biased, but do you have a source for the cries of "Long live Queen James!"? Or even the "Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen" story? Carcharoth 00:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any page that quotes Antonia Fraser loses me rather quickly. I think that stuff is spurious: the second quote is just about sourceable from contemporary gossip, but serious historians, even the ones who believe James was gay, don't use it. Contemporary gossip is a really poor source of historical information, particularly in James's reign when just about every death was rumoured to have been a poisoning. qp10qp 01:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Antonia Fraser - I think I see what you mean. Carcharoth 08:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fraser is a popular historian. I would say that I've read some of her, and she's entertaining, and there's nothing particularly wrong with her work, but she's not a serious scholar, and anyone who would cite her as an authority is clearly either ignorant or being purposefully deceptive. As to gossip, I understand Qp to be acknowledging that "Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen" was a contemporary witticism. If so, it is significant in its own right for what it shows about contemporary opinion. It provides little evidence one way or another about James's sexuality, but it does speak to the idea that such rumors date back to James's own reign, and that his relationships with his favorites were not simply par for the course, but aroused comment and notice at the time as being unusual, and perhaps symptomatic of homosexual activities. It seems to me that the issue can be laid out fairly clearly and simply. There have been rumors of homosexuality ever since James's lifetime. Many recent historians have suggested that James's letters to his favorites suggest, at least, homoerotic feelings towards them. That being said, there is no direct evidence, the calumnies of contemporaries ought to be taken with a grain of salt, &c. This oughtn't be all that difficult. john k 06:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the gay side of things is now more than covered in the article, and one day, if I can summon up the interest, I will go through that material, source it properly and balance it with alternative views. John, you will know that not only is there reams of contemporary gossip about James's homosexuality but also about all manner of other things—from licence at court to his personal cleanliness and supposed Scottish and secret Catholic behaviours. To contemporary gossip, add a raft of histories written from an anti-Stuart perspective during the Commonwealth. Good historians will not dismiss this material, because, as you say, it represents historical opinion and there may well be no smoke without fire; but they will use it judiciously and in proportion.

A sure sign of the bad popular historian (some popular historians are remarkably good) is that their first instinct is not for the most accurate combination of material but for the material that will provide the juiciest story (and the juiciest stories are nearly always the dubious ones). I put Lady Antonia in that category. Her books are racy and lively for that reason, but they are likely to fly from my hand across the room at random moments. Also, once she has made a judgement—that James was gay, that Anne of Denmark was a Catholic—she talks of it as a fact, without the necessary note of caution. If we are going to use Antonia, we should at least read her (as you and I have done) rather than take quotes from websites which quote her out of context to prove that James was gay. And we should treat any material that the best historians omit with the greatest of caution.

As far as those studies like David Bergeron's go, which analyse James's letters, etc. from a homosexual perspective but with respectable scholarly techniques, we should certainly not dismiss them; but as a general page, we should bear in mind that his findings have by no means been absorbed as definitive into current scholarly opinion on James. qp10qp

Have a look at this: [3] - a translation of contemporary Danish accounts of the wedding. Absolutely fascinating. Is there anything you can use here, or shall I stick it in the external links? Carcharoth 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And if you skip forward to the end, you get a complicated theory that "bad weather" was a poor excuse, and that the whole "James sailing across the North Sea" episode may have been some big diplomatic game between James and Elizabeth... Carcharoth 12:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And a thread here is trying to unearth the location of the wedding. Carcharoth 14:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And the best bit I could find on the history of where they married is here:

"Oslo Ladegård was built on top of the old Bishops house from 1579. The site itself, however, contains remnants of buildings going back to around 1200. The medieval buildings were abandoned in 1554, and it rapidly decayed. The mayor Christian Mule took over and built his house over the eastern wing of the medieval structure in 1579. It was in this house that King James I of England married princess Anne of Denmark in 1589. Oslo Ladegård as you see it today is built in 1725. Lately the city of Oslo has reconstructed its baroque gardens."

So that seems to be the end of that. Carcharoth 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And it seems that the sources saying "Old Bishops Palace" have it slightly wrong. Carcharoth 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I give up! :-) This source says they "married in the cathedral of St Halvard at Christiania" - now, I know Christiania is a former/old name of Oslo, and that the cathedral of St Halvard was the first Oslo Cathedral, but which is right, the Old and New Edinburgh volumes by James Grant, from the 1880s, or the translation of the contemporary Danish accounts? Actually, that should be obvious. Carcharoth 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading all your detective work, and it makes me feel quite lazy because I take the Wikipedia motto "verifiability, not truth" rather literally, and so long as I can find several reputable sources that say the same thing, I am happy to take their word for it and don't enquire whether they are right or not.

I think what you have unearthed is that "the marriage took place at the Old Bishop's Palace" is scholarly shorthand for "the marriage took place in some building or other in the general area of the heap of bricks that is all we are left with today, and so, to cut a long story short, lets call it the Old Bishop's Palace, and besides, since Wikipedia hasn't been invented yet, no one will actually be nerdy enough to check". Or it might mean that the old name was used indiscriminately for the new buildings, in the same way that in Reading, for example, the Butts, presumably the site of the old shooting butts, was simply a wide thoroughfare with some exquisitely tiled public lavatories in the middle, near which the Butts Centre was built, where you can now buy trousers, bags of fruit'n'nut, etc. but would be hard put to find a decent quiver. qp10qp 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the building hunt turned out to be a bit of a dead end. The thing I'm really happy with is finding that huge webpage with all these contemporary accounts of the wedding. Really gives some atmosphere to the event. Did you get a chance to read through some of that? I haven't had a chance to read all of it yet, but the bits I did look at had some nice stories in them. Carcharoth 17:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very interesting, though I don't think this chap should be quite so sure that these documents haven't been researched by recent historians. Willson references Munch and seems to cover all the essentials in this document. I'm not quite sure what any extra information may consist of, apart from peripherals. I've come across the theory before that Anne's delay was suspicious, but it has not been endorsed by mainstream historians. There are Scottish accounts, not only Danish ones, and it must be remembered that Anne had Scots with her and some had gone on to Scotland after the storms, reporting the delays there, including deaths of sailors and damage to ships and Anne's putting in at first at the nearest harbour, on a small island: none of this could have been planned or fabricated. In any case, if Elizabeth had put pressure on to stop the marriage, that would have applied whether James turned up in person himself or not. I believe the proxy marriage did take place, which is the standard view; but, once again, what difference would James's arrival make if the Danes did not really want the marriage? (When Charles tried something similar and went after Maria Anna in Spain, his presence still did not produce a marriage, because the Spanish didn't want one.) We also have much evidence of James's state of mind at the time, which was emotional rather than calculating. He even tried to keep his plans to go to Norway secret from his chief minister Maitland, which I don't think would have been the case if a diplomatic crisis were involved.

I find it interesting that the marriage seems to have taken place in a hall rather than a church, though perhaps the fact that it was a bishop's hall made it consecrated ground. I'm beginning to suspect that the date of 1579 for the rebuilding that appears in the quotation above may just mean that the rebuilding may have started, but before all the old buildings were demolished. When you suggest the sources saying the marriage took place at the Old Bishop's Palace have it "slightly wrong", what do you mean? I didn't quite follow that bit. (Christen Mule's Gaard seems to be where James lodged, somewhere within the precincts of the Bishop's property: from there he popped over to the hall for the do.)

qp10qp 21:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And thanks to Egil (thanks, Egil!) we now have Old Bishop's Palace in Oslo. Carcharoth 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. And now I can grasp what happened: Mule had rebuilt the hall but it kept the same name. qp10qp 21:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a bachelor in history and graduated summa cum laude. The history classes...not GLBT classes...taught us that James had male lovers and wasn't interested in his wife. In fact, over 75 of Jame's homosexual love letter survive to this day. End of story.

As for KJVonly, well it was written in 1611, and included such questionable translations as "in my Father's House are many MANSIONS". James insisted the word be inserted as a paean to the rich. 68.211.77.10 10:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article as it stands now seems to be circumlocutious regarding his homosexual affinities. It does not seem right to relegate all that to a spun off article - a significant kernel must be included here. Haiduc 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fine. The historical record speaks for itself. Unless you were there at the time, you are never going to know for sure. Carcharoth 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia policy doesn't stipulate there should be deference towards editors who have credentials. Secondly, you are required to provide references to secondary not primary sources. However, I agree with Haiduc, there should be a clearer summary of the sub-article. Addhoc 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do BAs now count as credentials? Even if we did have deference towards credentialled editors, a BA oughtn't to count for much of anything. john k 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Too right. It's surprising not only how small an amount of history one can actually manage to cover during a history degree course but also how so many students ever get degrees considering the small amount of actual work most of them do. I'm thinking of adding something like the following to my userpage: "I have an MA in Modern History, for what it's worth; take no notice of that because how I ever got it, given the amount of time I spent on social, cultural, sporting and drinking activities at university, I have no idea". qp10qp 15:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc, we can't summarise that article because it is inaccurate and largely unreferenced. In fact, maybe we should talk about putting it up for deletion, since it breaks Wikipedia's main policy, NPOV, by arguing that James was a homosexual without giving counter-arguments (apart from that James condemned buggery) and by not even mentioning his other personal relationships, for example those with his wife and with Anne Murray. qp10qp 05:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've not noticed in the books I have read about James any great interest in the question of whether he was a homosexual or not (some say he was, some say the matter is doubtful, hence the caution here), and so the article reflects that. If one tries hard enough, one may find books, relating to gay history or whatever, which study the question. It should in my opinion, therefore, be surveyed in a specialist article. qp10qp 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that previous studies of his life have avoided his masculine affections is more an indicator of prudishness and bigotry than "lack of interest." And as for relegating this side of him to a "specialist article," the same could be said about any other aspect of his biography. I think we need to treat his homoerotic dalliances with the same degree of attention and detail as the rest of his life - how could we do otherwise?! Haiduc 03:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I look at it the other way round, in that the most interest was shown in his homosexuality in the seventeenth century, when the largely anti-Stuart historians of the Commonwealth established the tradition of his homosexuality. In my opinion, the trend is now towards less interest in the subject by mainstream historians and towards less certainty that he was a homosexual. I looked through Pauline Croft's biography (2003) today to find references to his homosexuality and could find none at all. She's a serious academic historian, and it seems to me that the more professional the historian, the less mention of homosexuality. The reason for that I think is that the evidence that he was a homosexual is only circumstantial. It is certainly evident that his relationships with men were emotional, but that's about it: emotional relationships between men were not uncommon in those days ("Oh, my Antonio, I love thee, and 'tis my heart that speaks"). All we can add to this article by discussing the matter is just that: discussion, interpretation, and opinion, referenced back and forth—but no facts. Someone else can do it, because I don't want to (there is a note early on in the article which sums up the issues, and I can't see how adding to that will make any difference). qp10qp 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Crumbs, I've just read the Personal relationships of James I of England, and it's misleading: no wonder it's got all those warning tags on it. For example, it says that Carr threatened to reveal to the court that James had slept with him: totally unverifiable (I'm pretty familiar with the Overbury documentation). qp10qp 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, this all comes back to sources. The material you are contesting is properly sourced, based on a work by a serious and reputable scholar and public figure. The "certainty" you seek is not to be found in historical writing, unless of course some idiot keeps a semen stained dress. Haiduc 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't seek certainty; I seek uncertainty, a balancing of the theories. I'm sure the reason some people think James was gay is that he very much seems to have been: but historical accuracy demands more than "seems": there has to be evidence, and there isn't any. The best we could do is to make a case that he had homoerotic tendencies, by interpreting some of his letters that way; but we'd have to balance that with his passionate love letters and poems to Anne, by his extreme opposition to homosexuality in his religious writings, by the fact that he was an exceptionally God-fearing man, and by the fact that not one witness ever came forward to say that he had slept with James, been propositioned by James, or whatever. Now, we could argue all this out in the article, but what would it change? In the end, we would be saying to the reader that we don't know—which is what we say already, but without making a meal of it, in what is only an overview. qp10qp 03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what do you mean when you say that the material is referenced to sources? That other article is skimpily referenced, and the references are to well-known information not to the one-sided interpretation of them. Of course, one could find sources for all theories about James, but they will be sources for those theories, not contemporary sources that settle the issue, because there aren't any. For example, take James's address to the Privy Council, quoted in that other article, in which he expresses his love for Villiers. The fact that this was so public a speech (the Privy Council was his government bench) makes this unlikely to have been the great public admission of homosexual or homoerotic love that our fellow article would have the reader believe. James is there using the word "love" in the way it was commonly used at the time, to mean "esteem". Everyone used the word in their letters to one another; you could just as well argue that when Elizabeth I used it, or her courtiers used it to her, that there was a sexual connotation. The word "love" is constantly used in this way throughout Shakespeare. qp10qp 04:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

To take up another of your points, where is the evidence that Carr threatened to tell the court that James had slept with him? There is none. He issued vague threats, and no one knows what he meant. There has been speculation, of course; but revelations of homosexuality aren't the only theory, since Carr had been in a high political position and had political secrets to reveal, for example concerning diplomacy with Spain and the pope, which would have damaged James (but very likely he was bluffing, since he never revealed anything at all). People may speculate, but there is no way of knowing.

The Personal relationships of James I of England suggests that James's complaint that Carr was not sleeping in his chamber is a sexual reference; but it was Carr's duty to sleep in the chamber, which was a large department involving a number of appointees and many other servants and bodyguards (think of Duncan's sleeping arrangements in Macbeth). Antonio Foscarini described the set up like this: "There are eight or ten who sleep in his very chamber, who can enter when they please, no matter how private his majesty may be, and who have the greatest influence with him." (Quoted in Anne of Denmark, by J.Leeds Barroll, p 132). Barroll, by the way, in his full scale biography of Queen Anne of Denmark, published in 2001, makes no mention of homosexuality or even homoeroticism. Not one word. qp10qp 02:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I mostly agree with Qp10qp here - there is no hard evidence as to whether James ever engaged in sexual relations with other men, and only somewhat ambiguous evidence as to his potential homosexuality. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on James, written, iirc, by Pauline Crofts, whom Qp mentioned above, discusses James's relationships with his favorites, but does not seem especially interested in the question of whether those relationships were sexual. Neither do the articles on Lennox, Somerset, or Buckingham. This would seem to be because the question is ultimately unknowable, and, such, not terribly worth investigating. I'd add that wikipedia would be fortunate indeed to have articles of the quality of ODNB articles. john k 06:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head by referring to the ODNB. An overview article like this should surely try to reflect the emphasis in the latest well-regarded general works on the subject, which will already have taken specialist studies into account. qp10qp 15:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What sense would James's plea to "[...] speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect" if there had been nothing going on between male friends that would have been thought a defect??? Haiduc 23:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You're starting to debate the issue - please don't - instead focus on how the article could be improved. Addhoc 23:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Debate over there please! As Addhoc says, discussion shouldn't take place here. I suggest taking this to Wikipedia's Reference Desk. For example, a different debate about James is taking place here. Carcharoth 14:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but that's wrong. Discussion should and have always taken place on Talk pages. Please cite the *policy* that says we cannot. This discussion or debate *is* about how the article can be improved. Wjhonson 19:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. How do you suggest we improve the article? Carcharoth 21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This was a good conversation, but someone has dumped a huge pile of undigested material from the really terrible Personal relationships of James I of England article back into this one, thus making two messed up articles. It's all out of place apart from anything else: who wants to read about Lennox in the part of the article about 1613-21? If that editor really wants more about Lennox, Carr, and Villiers in the article then he/she should come here and discuss it fully on the talk page while we find agreed ways of referencing correct material and removing biased material and unhistorical material. The added material really is poor history and would lose this article its star if it stays, and so after discussion I will remove it and place it here to be rewritten (because I think rewriting and correctly referencing this material would be the only way to stop repeated ruination of this article by the thoughtless readding of this appallingly and superficially written stuff). It looks like I am going to have to explain sentence by sentence what is wrong with it, using references, a tedious task that I could do without. qp10qp 01:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh dear. Just move it back again for now, I'd say. Reference over there, and tone down, then synchronise with a summary bit here somewhere. Though maybe you've done that already - I'm a bit behind the times here at the moment. Carcharoth 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a countering position on that sub-article. There's nothing juicier than a homosexual conspiracy, is there? 68.110.8.21 07:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this from the article:

Have you ever wondered why the Bible is riddled with anti-homosexual references? Could it be that many passages were altered to hide the king's true sexual orientation?

How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.

Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr. "The king leans on his [Carr's] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others." (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611)

Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, "I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me." (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)

I suggest Wikipedia policies dictate we should not have article sections entitled "Rampant Rumours of Homosexuality". -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rampant rumours? You should be at talk:Cuba, an anon-editor there, has turned that discussion page into a gossip forum. GoodDay 00:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the Kings purported male relationships are not particularly controversial (See in particular this section) it seems natural that the article be included in the category LGBT history of the United Kingdom. The continued removal of the categoty and claims that replacing it is "Vandalism" seem a little odd. Artw 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I see you guys are at it again, and that it's spread to the talk categories. Please stop or at least explain what exactly it is you are attempting to accomplish. Artw 19:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are just another in a long line of homotrolls. Don't need that kind of junk here. Lord Loxley 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to A) Be WP:CIVIL and B) explain exactly what you mean by that? Artw 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to just drop the matter entirely? Lord Loxley 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this article wouldn't be in the WikiProject. The project doesn't limit itself to people who were gay; it includes all articles of interest to people who study LGBT issues. King James I is certainly of interest to people who study LGBT issues. Adding the article to the project isn't the same as declaring him gay, and removing the project tag is a misunderstanding of the nature of WikiProject LGBT. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Aha, this paraphilia of gay royalty or aristocracy, cover ups, conspiracies and the like just always finds itself distorting the proper value and dignity of Wikipedia articles, against due weight. In fact, nothing matters to such people other than the mere whisper or insult that the person in question could be in fact, a flaming homosexual or one in the closet. This article is supposed to be serious history on matters of state, not a field day for perverts. Lord Loxley 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, could you please discuss the question politely and clearly, keeping your reasons focused on Wikipedia policy rather than impassioned arguments? I certainly interpreted what you just said as a personal insult, but it didn't really include any cogent reasons to remove the WikiProject LGBT Studies tag from the article. - FisherQueen ( Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You overestimate your standing here in playing coy or innocent. The Queer Brigade has charged on through here several times to push their POV, which has been resisted each and every time...but they keep coming back. You lot are no different. Stop causing trouble. Lord Loxley 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder who's causing trouble? The person removing a WikiProject banner without an explanation? Or the person politely asking for a reason? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You POV-pushing vandals have co-opted this page forever now, because people are afraid to counter you, with the usual "homophobe" epithet being thrown at them. I am not afraid of standing up to your bullying tactics to push your POV in any and all articles about notable people, whom you wish to "drag down to your level" through sick and twisted fantasies of turning straight men gay. Shut the fuck up and go away, once and for all! Lord Loxley 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a talking too and a cool down on AN/I, though I;m now thinking maybe an outright ban would be better. Artw 22:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion here for anyone interested. Artw 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wipe out the opposition, eh? Classic! Lord Loxley 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• See here: User_talk:RucasHost#Caveat_on_James Lord Loxley 22:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)