James I/Buckingham, & Their Big Gay Love

[babydraco]

“They probably didn't engage in literal sodomy* so they didn't actually consummate, and that means that despite any emotional connection, they weren't physically gay lovers and thus, not a real couple” is the most straight guy perspective excuse ever. Maybe they really didn't, maybe they did and lied because they had strong motivation to, since it was illegal and all, but there's a whole range of other things two men can do together without involving anal. Some guys genuinely don't do that, and it doesn't make their relationships, or all the blowjobs and handjobs and rimming and dry humping and frotting, any less valid.

James was mildly disabled, and getting older, and they both had families and jobs to do and they weren't always living just down the hall from each other. They also lived in an era when disease was rampant, hygiene was poor, plumbing inconvenient, and lube was expensive and messy (and ideas about who did the topping were based on rigid social roles and concepts of power which were ultimately a bit sexist and so if you cared about your partner's future career and marriage prospects, you'd take care not to ruin his reputation as a man). But, lack of opportunity doesn't equal lack of desire.

People who try to claim otherwise in this case, have clearly not heard of this book

“But were they lovers in the modern sense of the word?”

Well, no, if you mean, their relationship was not a democracy between equals. Even if James was king of England in the 21st century, he would still not have the holy cow ginormous amount of power he had over George's entire life in 1615. And back then, being the king's favorite lover (whether male or female) was as much an actual job as it was anything else...

But they talked as if they were married (in addition to referring to each other as “husband” and James calling George his “wife”. James says during a period when they're separated, that when George returns, they will “make a new marriage”). And apparently kinky about it- if you enjoy Gentle Daddy Doms and their irrepressible little boys....

“Men in the 17th century were extremely dramatic, demonstrative and emotional, and they often used flowery language toward each other”

But not when they were two people so far apart socially that they would not have spoken to each other, or perhaps never met at all, if they weren't trying to get each other into bed (with the considerable support of their friends and family uniting to push them together*).

The thing is, they weren't equals. No one is equal to a king except another king, but they weren't childhood best friends (like Henry VIII and Charles Brandon) or old war buddies or in laws (although they've ended up posthumously with multiple descendants who had children together). Eventually, George Villiers became the most powerful man in England, but he was far from that when they met. James was king of four countries and George was a commoner, raised in genteel poverty. James was almost fifty and George Villiers was 20/21.

So how did this happen?

See, unlike Jame's relationship with his previous lover, Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset*, which began by adorable accident, George Villiers supposedly planned the whole thing. His mother (married to a minor knight) had been left a penniless widow, and she decided on two courses of action. One, she'd marry a rich man herself, and two, she'd groom her gorgeous bisexual son into the perfect courtier and hurl him with great force at someone wealthy and powerful. So she sends him to France to learn Skills, and then he goes to English court and starts making connections. At this point, he already has a reputation for bisexuality. On his mother's advice, and with the help of a group trying to turn the king's attention away from Somerset (whose star was already plummeting), George acquires the job of cupbearer to King James (one of those ceremonial roles considered too much of a honor to give to an actual servant) which meant he was basically right in the king's line of sight, getting to stand close to him and speak to him. And James was like “how you doin'” and George Villiers was like “heart eyes” and danced for him and the rest is history.

What might draw them to each other besides the fact that James was king, and George was hot?*

James grew up lonely, essentially orphaned, affection starved and occasionally physically and emotionally abused by his caregivers, who were hardcore Knox style Calvinists (who had separated him from his family for the purposes of raising a king who could be bullied into serving their agenda). George came from a loving, close knit family, but they were famously also gold digging social climbers not known for their ethics, whose plan for their future appeared to be “we'll pimp George out to someone powerful”. Historians note that he didn't seem to care about all the money he eventually made, he craved attention, he wanted to matter, to be important and adored.

So really, you've got two people who just wanted someone to love them. James probably adored being around that big, loving, family, they may have been unethical but at least they would never stab *each other* in the back (in James's family, the stabbings tended to be literal).

Furthermore, you can't use the excuse that “it was a different time and people related to each other differently so stop thinking like a modern person who sees gay in everything”. Because...

People in the king's own court reported that when it came to Buckingham, James would “tumble and kiss him like a mistress”.

Francis Bacon wrote Buckingham a letter of advice which begins by congratulating him on his new relationship. Queen Anne herself may have been involved in the selection process for finding a new lover to distract James (not the first time the wife of a powerful man has survived his affairs by stage managing them behind his back and making sure he never picks someone she can't work with). She would urge Buckingham to “be true” to her husband.

Several poems and songs which appeared during their lifetimes referenced the relationship. People in their contemporary era wrote songs in which Villiers is referred to as a “Ganymede” (17th century slang for a young man who is sleeping with a powerful older guy, usually as the receptive partner, in this case also used as a reference to his first job at court, because Ganymede served as cupbearer to Zeus*), as James's spouse, and at least once, as a whore. He was publicly slut shamed for tempting the king away from all that is good and pure, accused of trying to manipulate James via sex. There's also a poem which argues that James's obsessive love for this guy ruined his life, he was normal before two Stuarts fell in love with him and gave him jobs he couldn't handle. There's a parody of the song accompanying Buckingham's “Gypsy” dance, which he performed during an innuendo laden play he commissioned to entertain the king at a housewarming party. AND people would make puns and jokes and metaphors about James's love of hunting and how he caught “Buck-in-game”. So let's not blame it on modern people misunderstanding the social attitudes of the past, everyone in their own era just assumed they were sleeping together.

It isn't as if disproving he slept with Buckingham proves he never hooked up with any men. I don't know why people keep trying to use "those two specific men never had sex" as proof James wasn't bisexual. Except that his feelings for Buckingham were clearly so intense and long lasting that people find it easier to stay focused on that part. He had two other serious boyfriends that we know of before he ever heard the name “George Villiers”. He was with Robert Carr for about six years, and his teenage affair with Esme Stewart caused a scandal and international incident (his own government had to forcibly separate them).

Then there's the Privy Council speech. The speech where James gets up in front of his council and announces that yes, in response to the increasingly critical rumors, he loves the Earl of Buckingham, and it is “not a defect”. He concludes by saying that as Christ loved John, he loves George. First, note he ends the speech by calling him by his first name, not his title as would have been more proper in that situation. He starts with "Earl of Buckingham" and ends with "George." Second, this is probably a coded message to anyone familiar with queer Biblical scholarship while allowing more clueless and/or homophobic listeners to live in denial and think he means they're just really really good, chastely platonic friends.

Wait, there was queer Biblical scholarship before the 1960s?

Yes. There has always been queer Biblical scholarship. Queer Christians had a handful of saints and Biblical figures who they took as icons for their community*, and St. John the Apostle (NOT the Baptist)was one of them. He was said to be very young and beautiful and that Christ called him “Beloved” and kissed him and touched him constantly. John is supposedly the redheaded figure seated next to Jesus in Da Vinci's Last Supper.* And no, in this case, viewing Christ as queer would not be blasphemous if you're seeing gay love as a beautiful thing.


Notes
*"literal sodomy"- of course we've never seen any mention in the historical record of the two of them attempting to gang rape tourists. Which is, of course, where the original meaning of the term came from (and in the late 20th/early 21st centuries, we've returned to using the original meaning, "sodomy" is only really used now in reference to police reports concerning anal rape, not as a term for any type of anal penetration regardless of level of consent).

**according to Eleanor Herman's Sex with Kings, this wasn't the first or last time a group of courtiers, occasionally colluding with the king's wife, chose his mistress for him behind his back, in order to have someone compliant to their wishes. This clearly did not work in the case of Buckingham.

**George Villiers was widely described by contemporaries as gorgeous. He was called "the most beautiful man in Europe" and the "handsomest bodied". That last quote, btw, came from a bishop.

Surviving artwork definitely supports these claims.

**Robert Carr was thrown from his horse in front of the king and broke his leg. James spent time personally overseeing his recovery, while teaching him Latin.

** The "Ganymede" thing is a bit victim blamey, as other people have noted. Taking the story of a child who was kidnapped by an all powerful man and coerced into a relationship and turning it into a slur against social climbing young gay men is... First, it associates homosexuality between consenting adults, with pedophilia and rape. Then it shifts most of the blame on the younger/receptive partner. A reference which should, in reality, say more ugly things about James than George (implying he used his power over a reluctant young man to get him into bed and keep him there), is used as a homophobic reference to paint *George* as an unprincipled, insatiable slut who purposely drives older men mad with lust. James becomes the one with no agency in this scenario, an innocent victim of a twisted sinner. It's not James's fault gorgeous homosexual young men climb into bed with him.

**unless you like the theory that it's Mary Magdalene, or you're into the theory that they were the same person or twins but let's remember it's only a painting, a specific person's interpretation of an event, not a photograph.

**such as King David, St. Sebastian, Ruth and Naomi, the Roman soldier whose lover Jesus healed, etc. St. Paul, often shipped with Timothy because of their close relationship and apparently disinterest in/dislike of women. There's a website with a list, which should be easily googleable.





(I'm still tweaking this, and don't quite know what to do with it when I'm done)