Well he was the Elector of Hanover, actually. He was also the very last English monarch to be painted wearing armor.
But wasn’t he a secret Catholic? Or is that someone else?
Right – it was George III that became KING of Hanover. But I didn’t want to confuse the poor guy further.
dropzone – his mother was Catholic, but James was a Protestant. Maybe you’re thinking of James II and VII, or Bonnie Prince Charlie?
That Stuart family switched sides regularly, and went to bat for the other team. – I mean Catholic vs. Protestant, not gay vs. straight here.
James II was openly (if discretely) Catholic; his brother and predecessor Charles II may have secretly converted to Catholicism late in life.
I thought sodomy and the lash were included as one?
Sure, if you want, but no egg roll.
Suddenly, I realize why I have always found this guy so disturbing.
Nice try, Mapplethorpe. Now bite down on this.
So that’s why they call you “Stumpy Dick”. I thought maybe your first name was Richard…
I generally depend on my wife for such historical details, but since she discovered that the net does not only contain race-horse rescue sites, her formerly-encyclopedic responses, which once included the papers of both the Stuarts and their mounts, are typically, “I dunno.” Further proof of the dumbing-down of the internet.
I think there’s way too much vitriol in this thread. Seriously. You all need to sit and smoke a fag. Or maybe eat a nice juicy faggot. When everyone has calmed down, we should concentrate on serious matters of Eglish History, such as the 1414 Fire and Faggot Parliament, which gave the right of poundage to Henry V.
Yes, I was well aware of the parodic intent of the OP, I should perhaps have said weak satire rather than pitting.
The satire falls down because American fundamentalists couldn’t give a flying fuck about King James or his predilections. They’re Americans, with no time for monarchs of any description.
I repeat, it’s the book, not the ruler who happened to authorize it, that they revere.
Check out a book by John Woodall called The Surgion’s Mate first published in 1617. After the introduction he goes on to list the qualities a surgeon’s mate should have which includes a willingness to shave and cut hair, to learn, do what is best for the health of the crew, and it gets really weird gender wise with how the mate should be in regards to the surgeon. I wish I had a copy in front of me but Woodall says that a surgeon’s mate should be like a “wife” and behaving in a loving manner towards the surgeon.
So, no, I don’t see such written statements as good evidence that he was gay. Though I suppose it’s possible.
Odesio
A metaphorical passage in a surgeon’s manual is pretty different from one man writing, in first-person, that he thinks of another man as his wife, in a letter to that man.
And yet every Christmas, sing their praises:
Fag King Wen-ces-las slid down
On the fist of Ste-phen…
Love the sin, hate the sinner?
For nonbelievers, same same.
If Phelps can protest ELECTROLUX vacuum cleaners because Sweden is a “pro-fag country” then he can protest the King James Bible because King James was a big queen.
By the way, my parents had an old Electrolux vacuum made in 1989. Throughout my entire childhood - up till age 19 - they went through at least two dozen of the newest, high-tech vacuums, and none of them ever lasted more than a year. But that Electrolux kept on sucking, and sucking, and sucking.
Don’t know about that, Lib. For one I have no Official Guide To Disbelieving that I adhere to and secondly, I am perfectly content with saying “I don’t know…and neither do you.”