King James I, sponsor of the most perfect Bible translation, the KJV, was bisexual?

British documentaries have long seemed to place a premium on on the physical attractiveness of their female presenters. I first noticed this a couple decades ago when a local college station broadcast a series to teach Greek. The hosts were a Greek leading lady and a schlub of a BBC reporter who couldn’t keep his eyes off her, lost in the blackness of her eyes and the china-like perfection of her bosom. When I managed to draw my eyes from her perfection I noticed he probably hadn’t learned a word of Greek, either, and didn’t care. But I chalked my reaction to a “youthful indiscretion” (Like my congressman Henry Hyde I was forty-one, a mere child).

Time went on and I discovered YouTube and its many British documentaries that were perfect to help me sleep. Battlefield’s sonorous music put me right out–I still don’t know who won at Kursk. Michael Wood’s endless lists of Dark Age kings was like counting sheep all named “Stan.” Baldric’s nasally honks were not enough to make three-day archaeological digs which found nothing but Northumbrian mud interesting enough to keep me awake.

But there were others on the list that caught my eye, first and foremost being shows presented by Dr Suzannah Lipscomb, whose screencaps always feature her angelic, blonde ringlets and a red dress she seems to have been poured into. Pure hubby service, ensuring that men and women both can enjoy “Hidden Killers of the Edwardian Home,” and I know I’m being played, but I stay played because she knows her stuff. Housewifery has never been safe and those shows are full of EEEK! moments.

The other day, having not been able to sleep all night, I turned to someone I hadn’t tried before, Lucy Worsley, OBE and her “Fit to Rule” miniseries. I came to it completely uninterested in the British royal dynasties and Ms Worsley, while elfin cute, is not the sort of manufactured knockout Lipscomb is. I thought I’d be able to sleep.

Nope. Turns out she has a filthy mind, which I find endlessly attractive, and is ready to dish on any Stuart or Hanover who comes her way. Especially as she’s a curator of their homes. From her I learned that James I/VI (depends on from which side of The Wall you hail), besides making a solid effort to be the Father of His Country, had an ongoing thing with the Duke of Buckingham. Remember that this is the sponsor of the book that proves to American fundamentalists that Jesus spoke English with a Scottish accent and gives them all the reasons to hate the gays. A fascinating story, and one it was hard to sleep through, but one that asks, “Does the Religious Right know about their boy, Jamey?” Discuss.

Meanwhile, Wikipedia sez, “She contributed to five episodes ofThe Secret Life Of: for theYesterday Channel.The series was designed to give ‘tabloid treatment of historical icons’and includes an episode where Lipscomb and co-host Lucy Worsley’ revel in these raunchy titbits’ about Henry VIII’s love life.” Oooh! Raunchy Tudors and if it’s about tits I’m sure Henry is first in line. OTOH, I need something boring to help me sleep tonight. Quantum physics, for instance.

FWIW, an episode of this past season of Doctor Who (“The Witchfinders”), the Doctor and her companions were in 17th Century England, and encountered King James, who was investigating rumors of witches in the area. In the episode, he was played, rather flamboyantly, by Alan Cumming.

The Wikipedia entry on James indicates that there’s a lot of speculation (and dispute) over his sexuality.

Oh come on, who doesn’t know that? Puh-leaze! They were calling James I bi when I was high school forty years ago.

I assume you’re being facetious when you call the KJV the “most perfect” translation.

If I can be facetious while telling some people’s version of the truth, guess which way I go?

https://www.growingchristians.org/questions-answers/is-the-kjv-the-perfect-translation/

I didn’t, but I’m old and American and we preferred to not talk about England.

I just wanted to say that, while I’ve found some of dropzone’s OPs to be, at best, opaque in the past, this one was excellent. I really enjoyed reading it.

And thank you for introducing me to Dr Suzannah Lipscomb, whose documentaries I will now begin seeking out.

Am I the only one who is sick of all the activists decreeing that <name of distant historical figure> was gay/bi/non-gender-binary/whatever? I don’t see how it helps their cause and, anyway, it’s been way overused.

Yes, I am sure that throughout history historical figures have occasionally buggered some boy or actually been gay. But I really don’t care if they did and I really don’t care for the random unsubstantiated decrees.

I know I have a reputation so I made an effort. Took me hours to clarify it. I also wrote it offline so this bloody Android in-between and unreliable internet connection couldn’t screw me or make me rush.

The effort paid off!

I am a straight cis-male and am no activist. My point was that his probable orientation, known by many of his countrymen then and today, is unknown by those who take “his” translation as the be-all-and-end-all and use it to persecute gays.

Conjectured, not probable. Certainly people said things, but that was common at the time. If you went by rumors and historical conjecture, pretty much every king or queen was homosexual. I think all of the queens had lesbian rumors. Charles I and II both jad rumors. And of course James. Were they true or just jealousy over not being the king or queens favorite? Moderns tend to have serious hangups about sex. We have a tendency to sexualize everything. Was James I very close with various men? No doubt. He was not a manly man either. Was he boning men? Who knows? He certainly had sex with women and had mistresses so it wasn’t just out of obligation. Was Buckingham a lover or just a close friend? I don’t think there’s a satisfactory answer.

I’m sorry. I didn’t mean that you were making an accusation. I assumed that you were just reporting on accusations made by others. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

That was clarified?

Actually, no. I made it worse by trying to put in context. Originally it was, “I saw a documentary that said that James I had a string of boyfriends but he also sponsored the KJV that is used as a cudgel against gays. Discuss.” But I didn’t see the documentary, just heard it, and then came the background of how I happened to listen to it and a sidetrip on how distracting some British presenters are but avoided the pitfall of the Snows, pere et fils, where Dan is fan service for Mom because there is still too much Northumbrian mud. (I was trained to dig in the American Southwest, sans mud.) So anyway, I made an effort to not fall into one of my typical rhetorical traps like writing a complete post as a single sentence. But for me it was clear.

The alternative is to assume every single person is straight, cutting all LGBT people off from their own historical context. When I was a kid, back in the '50s, the only person everyone knew was gay was Liberace, and he himself denied it. We had no context whatsoever.

And I guess I am an activist, since I want my daughters to be treated right. I just forget they are actively bi. It’s just who they are and that’s okay.

As a statistical matter, if you assume that every person is straight, you’ll be FAR closer to being correct than if you assume that every person is gay.

And if you make no effort to conjecture you are not bound to be anything. You let Reality spread over you like a warm blanket. Under my blanket I will give a NatGeo doc about the origin of people a shot. Nothing new, uninteresting narrator, this may work.

Might I recommend to you the short documentaries of our own Philomena Cunk. This one is a good place to start, it features the highly-respected physicist Professor Brian Cox: