Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

message: Above seems to have sprung a lively discussion about James' ethnic heritage. Objectively, he was one of those british monarchs who had a rather large dose of English and Scottish ancestry, compared to the vast majority whose bloodlines mostly came from abroad.
The chief contributors to this were his paternal grandfather Matthew Earl of Lennox, of almost total Scottish ancestry, and his paternal grandmother, of plenty of mixed English-Welsh and Scottish ancestry. Whereas her maternal grandmother was from Western German and french ancestry, with drops of blood from british isles. His maternal grandfather was a product of a series of mixed marriages, having a rather small Scottish dose, a bit bigger Welsh-English dose, and some Danish, German, French, Netherlands etc doses.
I would say that his portions of Scottish and English were approximately equal - Scottish approx at 30-40% and English, summed up from various sources, also something around 20-40%I must wonder why there are those who claim his English ancestry being particularly minimal? What are the grounds for such allegations. 217.140.193.123 20:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ancestry 

message: You might be interested to know that the article on Basilikon Doron linked from this page is almost entirely erroneous and needs to be rewritten completely.
:If so, ammend it! thats what wikipedia is all about - --ClemMcGann 20:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basilikon Doron 

message: Why can't it just be James I and IV, as I don't think any other king has been King of England and Scotland at the same time.  Personally I have always been told he was James IV of Scotland and I of England, which is obviously too long to use as a name.  When he became king of England as well, he effectivly became King of the British Empire.  
I think it is unfair to state any allegiance to one area of his rule, if you see what I mean.
The reason is there was no United Kingdom - Scotland and England were not united as Nations.  A modern analogy can be the titles of Queen Elizabeth II who is in fact only called Queen of the United Kindgom in the United Kingdom, and is NOT an Anglican when in Scotland.  It simply reflects historical fact.  Yes it may be cumbersome but no where near as cumbersome as listing of the current Queen's title.  Plus, it would annoy Scots no ends to call him King of Britain as Scotland was independent until 1707. Davidkinnen 17:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  James I and IV? 

message: One point that seems to have been missed in the debate is that the regnal number is virtually arbitrary.  A monarch chooses the name he/she wishes to be known by, including the number.  Victoria's first name was Alexandrina, but she preferred her second name Victoria.  If she had wanted, and the parliament approved, she could have called herself Victoria IV despite the fact that there had been no previous Victorias.  It would have been absurd, but it could have been done.  Supporting this is the fact that, following the James I/VI fight, an agreement was made a long time ago that the regnal number of any future British king who had a name that had previously been used in either Scotland or England would take into account the previously used regnal numbering.  Therefore, the next James to come to the British throne would not be James III but James VIII.  History would record Jameses I through VII of Scotland, but Jameses I, II and VIII of Britain.  Cheers JackofOz 03:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regnal Numbering is Not Necessarily Sequential

message: Why has this page been titled 'James I of England'? His official title is James VI of Scotland and James I of England', though he is usually referred to as James VI and I. Why is he only referred to using his later English title and why - moreover - was such a glaringly insultingly (read; insulting to the Scottish people) titled page submitted and approved as a featured article candidate? To be honest, I'm somewhat stunned as this isn't the standard I've been used to seeing on Wikipedia. His title is James VI and I and that is what he should be called. Note; NOT James I of England and James VI of England, the Scottish title is always given pre-eminence in recognition that he was first and foremost a Scottish monarch, even if he seemed to forget that when he moved to London. The title as it stands is insulting; please consider changing it - either call him by his proper title, call him simply 'James VI and I of Britain' or somesuch or else call him James VI of Scotland. By no possible stretch of the imagination can calling him 'James I of England' as the page title be taken as anything other than a (admittedly unintentional) swipe at Scotland.   -Duncan.
Uh, this seems a bit redundant to me, especially when his full King name is stressed throughout. The page name is for reference only, as user who searches for "James VI of Scotland" would get the disambiguiation page just like a user who searches for "James I of England". Also, it is well noted that the prime aspects of James I's rule revolved around his actions in England, as they were much more controversial than his rule in Scotland, as I'm sure you understand. Either way, it should not be interpreted as an insult to anyone. Schizmatic 19:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazed at Title 

message: Anybody know when the homosexuality promoters will stop using famous people as the bedrock of their image, justifying who they think they are?  The "homosexual" nature of King James has been done to death!  Let's keep things neutral.  All this stuff is, just an attempt to make the King James Bible look bad by those who feel victimised by "Bible-thumpers" and the Bible Belt.  If only we could go back in time and let you make such fallacious claims to his face.  You'd have your arse whooped and head on the block!  68.110.9.62 00:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[Gay agenda]] 

message: I'm referring to the link under the 'Notes' section, http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/jamesi.htm .
That link is seriously biased, and as a historian who has studied James, I'll be the first to tell you that, other than needless anti-James propaganda of the time (see Anthony Weldon), there is barely any evidence of James actually participating in homosexual acts. Admittedly, he probably did, but that link is more of a parody on James I's tendancies rather than an actual intellectually informative article. 
Schizmatic 19:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James' Homosexuality 

message: The user going by the name 'IP Address' is remarkably more arrogant in his stupidity than most. Horrified by the sentiments expressed by James in his letters he reverts the passage, demanding a primary source. I provide this and cite Bergeron. Clearly he has no idea who this is, and reverts once more, again demanding a primary source! 
For the blissfully ignorant: David M. Bergeron's 'King James, The Letters of Homoerotic Desire' is the most accurate transcription of James's letters from the holdings of the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, and the Bodleian. It corrects former mistakes or intentional glosses from previous historians, which is why you'll find its transcriptions consistently cited in recent academic studies.
A side note: I and the others aren't pushing any 'agenda'. Personally I couldn't give a toss if James was a screaming queen or the butchest king that ever held a sword. What's important is the truth. And to deny the reality of James's love for Buckingham, Carr, etc, and their importance in his live and reign, when the primary sources are so explicit, is not merely historical distortion, but uneducated bigotry at its worst. Not everyone can afford a university education, but you might at least flatter us all with some historical reading before you next do some reverting. The edit that really made me laugh out loud was IP Address changing the word 'beauty to 'vigor' in the qualities Buckingham was known for! Fucking hilarious. This is clearly someone with a very nervous grip on their own masculinity.
Engleham
:Permit me, oh wise one, to have some ignorance about homosexual affairs.  Show us a primary source of James's writings, or leave well enough alone.  Yes you do in fact care, because you wish to push the idea that James was a flamer like yourself.  Your penchance for propping up your own elitist ego, has not gone unnoticed.  This is obviously a personal obsession of yours.  Just because authors or scholastics push their own negative agenda which matches yours, doesn't mean that it is factual.  I charge that you desire to see James forever in the dirt for the doubtful and contrived hypocrisy per his Basilikon Doron.  (RE: Homosexuality_and_Christianity#Early_Modernity) Where is your refutation of that philosophical love, as discussed by others in the aforementioned and above categories on this talk page?  You've continued adding this "over-homosexualism" in every article you edit on the Wikipedia.  I wonder how that could not be an agenda.  You are obsessed with pushing your favoured perceptions, above recent common objections to NPOV violations per Anthony Weldon.  It is clear that you want your favoured discolouration of this great monarch to be just another of a long line in your character assassinations.  That is all he means to you, hurt by Evangelicals like Fred Phelps quoting the KJVB about your homosexual orientation.  That is a very common attitude throughout the gay community, but I have no sympathy in regards to your several revisionisms on this site.  IP Address 07:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are really gunning for a sexual fantasy here, making a slew of self-opinionated assumptions that reflect your own life's choices.  Before our present era, male comrades used to asexually share the same bed in many diverse circumstances--but it does not even follow that this "bed" was in a literal/figurative sense.  Have you forgotten how philosophical and grandiosely eloquent the King was?  His exaggerated sense of self-importance is easy to caricature, which is exactly what you are trying to exploit.  Have you read the sessions of Parliament when he would dictate, exactly and how his ministers would follow his orders to the tee?  In the case that it may be literal, perhaps another bed was propped up beside the King's, while the size of His Majesty's bed was unspecified in the first place.  You don't know that James and George weren't up all night playing cards and debauching servant wenches, getting drunk and discussing life at court.  James asserted his divine right to be as arbitrary as he wished, although not contrary to the welfare of his kingdoms.  Also, it was not uncommon in said times for siblings of both sexes to sleep in the same bed as well--until puberty anyways.  I'm not a fundamentalist and your perception of my stance is entirely confirming my accusations.  Your agenda is to use the Wikipedia as a vehicle to fight Christian Fundamentalists, who were/are just as belligerent towards King James in life and death--despite quoting from his version of the Bible specifically (it was the first universally available English translation).  My agenda is to keep this article as neutral and least rabble-rousing as possible, because matters of state are supposed to be gentlemanly and composed.  Your blatent distaste for James is overblown and misdirected POV, repeated by his other enemies as well--those dissatisfied with the Union of the Crowns and following Parliamentary Union, for instance.  James is the object of ridicule and hatred for so many separate reasons, but they have less to do with his person than the circumstances in which his life played a great deal in shaping the world for so many people.  This is why I am invested in keeping this article, the least flamebait-ridden as possible.  IP Address 08:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I see your favourite article.  IP Address 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have a problem with referencing letters and perceptions people give of them.  There are however, many things that don't add up.  The whole favourites thing for example, does not mention the King's role in influencing the weddings of the Stuart, Villiers, Gordon and Lennox families--etc.  It appears that some are wholly divested in the scandalous approach of rubbish tabloids, than the serious life of Stuart court.  The fact is that the most strident and persistent declaration of homosexuality in the King's matters or any other celebrity featured at the Wikipedia, comes from homosexual (& misc) activists whom visit each and every article that they can try and push the scandalous side and contribute little else.  See WP:POINT in especial regards to the editing history of User:Engleham.  BTW, it was customary for kings to use and abuse women.  The difference in the case of James, is that he thought he had divine right to use and abuse men as well.  James thought of his subjects as toys to prod and poke, as if his hands were molding his kingdom how God molded the Earth in Genesis.  Coming to the point of religion; James's religious enemies were/are the only ones wholeheartedly devoted to the homosexual slant.  The KJV is merely an object thrown back and forth in between fundamentalists and evangelicals, who sometimes mutually resort to taking out their bitterness onto the patron of the Bible's publishing.  Extreme Presbyterians definitely had some things to say about James; justified or not.  It is nevertheless a fact, that GLBTQ extremists have tried to take their plights out on James as well.  IP Address 08:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It just so happens that you totally ignored my last treatise on the serious lack of NPOV being promoted here, because it appears that you wish to take a side and even if it is stolidly anti-Stuart Whiggery.  Well then, I suppose you are pining to accept only the anti-Stuart perceptions?  Why have you not given consideration for innocence, rather than accept POV attacks on the King stand in for impartiality?  How come you ignore the errance behind the allegations, especially in regards to Esme Stuart--the King's own cousin?  What about the dynastic marriage between Villiers and Stuart of Lennox also, or the bastardy between Villiers of Cleveland and Stuart?  There are purely dynastic issues of courtly marriage which have been totally obscured by paper pushing the POV attacks, in regards to families of the King's relatives and favourites.  I already did mention at least one objection to the overwhelming anti-Stuart biases  Of course, that will be dismissed by the anti-Stuarts still around today--especially Yankee Americans whom glorify their Puritan ancestors.  By the way, why would the King compose anti-homosexual writings if he did not intend his words to be obeyed (the dictator that he was)?  Should you not pay attention to this objection?  It is too bad that the majority of authors on the Stuart era were liberals, whom have embellished the Stuart failure for their own benefit and the Hanoverian Union (RE: Triumphalism).  If you think that by relying on merely revisionist perceptions of the past will do this article justice, then you are happy with the NPOV violations just as much as David Irving.  Your penchance for leaving the matter to POV-problematic authors and scholars, is no different than letting the "Anybody But Bush" crowd have majority say on the George W. Bush article--or the PLO in regards to the Ariel Sharon article.  Tut-tut; I will not be played a fool in this matter.  IP Address 05:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems you totally ignored my earlier post, where I gave a defense of James' policies against the standard Whig narrative.  What I am basically saying is that your opinion is irrelevant.  So is anybody else's opinion.  What matters is the opinion of major scholars of James.  Let's start citing what they say about James's sexuality, rather than continuing these inane personal attacks. john k 05:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you still aren't listening, but pressuring for wholehearted acceptance of perceptions written by the King's enemies about his personality (e.g. personal attacks) and further promotion of those memes which continue to defame the Stuart dynasty.  It is fully understandable that we should have the article written in such ways as to retransmit what has been said about him, from all parties and not in a way to avoid letting the king's actions and words stand for themselves as the strongest point of the article.  However, where are the Tory opinions expressed in the article?  Good words on behalf of the king seem so detached, that I thought it appropriate to loosen those animated against his character and/or reign.  The essence of this article, says good and bad things about his reign--but only negative things about his character.  All it takes is for you to be a little more objective than these liberal polemics--I do not believe it is a personal attack to consider Catholic apathy on your part.  IP Address 09:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Sources 

message: This bit needs tidying up, as it's a bit contradictory: "the refusal on the part of the House of Commons to impose sufficiently high taxes crippled the royal finances. ...  his mismanagement of the kingdom's funds ..."  Is it accepted by economic historians that the taxes raised were insufficient for the needs of government? Or was it that James' personal expenditure was too high - did Parliament give him more than Elizabeth, and if so how much more? Sasha 22:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Confusion? 

message: Does anyone know anything about English interest in the Cape of Good Hope prior to the Dutch landing there in 1652?
Gregorydavid 15:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  James and the Cape 

message: I'm totally baffled by the description of Robert Carr as 'a peasant Scotsman'.  He was the son of Sir Thomas Kerr by his second wife, Janet, the sister of Sir Walter Scott of Buccleuch, a very elevated class of 'peasantry'.  I've made the necessary changes.
Rcpaterson 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Carr-a 'peasant' Scotsman? 

message: This is far too negative! James spoke of absolutism but didn't actually rule in a tyrannical style as his son did. I think he is a little misrepresented, I'm not really an expert (my dissertation was on the English Civil War so I know a little but not much) but this article strikes me as very unfair, I'd like to see it made a little more positive ;)
:This is the most attacked UK royal article on Wikipedia.  No matter what efforts are made at bringing it to normality, some kooks like to screw it up again and again.  I have given up on it.  IP Address 13:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Union of the Crowns and all national politics since then, must be the ultimate source of contention which plagues James in death.  I futhermore believe that these attacks come from English and English-American folks, except for a few Scottish and Scottish-American Presbyterians.  Another source comes from homosexual-affiliates and those opposed to homosexuality-affiliated things.  I hardly think that those of other persuasions waste their time.  IP Address 14:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bias? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:James I (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress