Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1 - Revision history

RMCD bot: Notifying talk page of move discussion on Talk:James I (disambiguation)

2022-08-03T10:48:13Z

Notifying talk page of move discussion on Talk:James I (disambiguation)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 10:48, 3 August 2022
Line 481:		Line 481:
	Yes, this article is very biased although I tried to remove some of it. [[Adolf Hitler]] doesn't get half the bad remarks as King James I in comparison.		Yes, this article is very biased although I tried to remove some of it. [[Adolf Hitler]] doesn't get half the bad remarks as King James I in comparison.
	[[User:Facto\|Facto]] 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)		[[User:Facto\|Facto]] 03:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

			== Move discussion in progress ==

			There is a move discussion in progress on [[Talk:James I (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 August 2022\|Talk:James I (disambiguation)]] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:James I (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 August 2022 crosspost --> —[[User:RMCD bot\|RMCD bot]] 10:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

MalnadachBot: Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)

2021-09-26T04:46:25Z

Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:46, 26 September 2021
Line 346:		Line 346:
	If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)		* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 382:		Line 382:
	:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.		:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.

	:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Steel1943: Aan

2019-11-24T21:54:09Z

Aan

← Previous revision		Revision as of 21:54, 24 November 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkarchive~~}}		{{Aan}}

	{{archive-nav\|1}}
	-----
	== King of France ==		== King of France ==

CommonsDelinker: Replacing Ireland-Capitals.PNG with File:Map_of_Ireland's_capitals.png (by CommonsDelinker because: File renamed: descriptive file name).

2018-02-19T02:21:04Z

Replacing Ireland-Capitals.PNG with File:Map_of_Ireland's_capitals.png (by CommonsDelinker because: File renamed: descriptive file name).

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:21, 19 February 2018
Line 347:		Line 347:
	If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)		* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 383:		Line 383:
	:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.		:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.

	:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wwoods: moved Talk:James I of England/Archive 1 to Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

2011-11-07T15:46:30Z

moved Talk:James I of England/Archive 1 to Talk:James VI and I/Archive 1

← Previous revision	Revision as of 15:46, 7 November 2011
(No difference)

Facto: {{talkarchive}} {{archive-nav|1}}

2006-06-06T18:12:24Z

← Previous revision		Revision as of 18:12, 6 June 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~featured~~}}		{{talkarchive}}
			{{archive-nav\|1}}
	{{mainpage date\|September 19\|2005}}
	''This is a selected entry on [[Template:March 24 selected anniversaries]] (may be in HTML comment''
	-----		-----
	== King of France ==		== King of France ==

Facto: moved Talk:James I of England to Talk:James I of England/Archive 1: archiving talk page 96kb

2006-06-06T18:02:26Z

moved Talk:James I of England to Talk:James I of England/Archive 1: archiving talk page 96kb

← Previous revision	Revision as of 18:02, 6 June 2006
(No difference)

Facto: rvv

2006-06-06T17:49:49Z

rvv

Show changes

83.59.228.165 at 17:38, 6 June 2006

2006-06-06T17:38:22Z

Show changes

Irishpunktom: /* James' Homosexuality */ +evidence!

2006-06-06T14:54:03Z

James' Homosexuality: +evidence!

← Previous revision		Revision as of 14:54, 6 June 2006
Line 349:		Line 349:

	lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-Capitals.PNG\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
			* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

	== More about James' sexuality ==		== More about James' sexuality ==

← Previous revision		Revision as of 04:46, 26 September 2021
Line 346:		Line 346:
	If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)		* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 382:		Line 382:
	:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.		:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.

	:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup~~><font color="blue"~~>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)~~]]</font>~~</sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup>[[User talk:Jtdirl\|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

← Previous revision		Revision as of 02:21, 19 February 2018
Line 347:		Line 347:
	If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		If James proscribed anal intercourse so strongly in his book, I guess he did not like to be a bottom. Perhaps he appreciated other sorts of sexplay... However, I wouldn't suggest the article to get a scholarly discourse over whether he liked to suck or to get blowjobs. [[User:Waimea\|Waimea]] 21:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

	lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)		lol. Interesting thought. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
	* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)		* Charming... anyway, James' letters from "letters of King James I and then again in IV (G.P.V Akrigg - 1984) - well, allow me to quote - "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, accounting that but as a point of unkindness." - Here James is begging "hundred"s of times for a bloke (carr) to go back into his Bed ("chamber") so they could continue "lying" together. Unless you are going to perform the Michael Jackson defense, I would say its fairly strong evidence of Homosexuality on James' part. --[[User:Irishpunktom\|Irishpunktom]]\<sup>[[User_talk:Irishpunktom\|talk]]</sup> 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Line 383:		Line 383:
	:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.		:The fact that James I, of Oscar Wilde, or millions of other people had children by wives offers no evidence of their sexual orientation, just their ability to get an erection by some means when having sex with their wives. (Mediaeval herbalists even had their own herbal forms of viagra for "a man who faileth to deliver when atop his wifie" (which was often taken as code for a man who was only attracted to other men. One mediaeval writer in France recommended for such men that they practice with a man and "when thou doest cometh of thy juices, immediately mount that wifie and deposit it thereof".) The evidence does suggest, however, in James's case, romantic attachments and feelings were found with other men rather than, as was the norm by not always the case, with women. The cultural shock in the case of Henry VIII with Anne Boleyn was not that they were a couple, but that Henry actually wanted to have his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled and to marry a woman he felt a romantic attachment to. The idea that marriage and a romantic attachment were linked was a mindblowing concept to his contemporaries. But then, all his male heirs by Catherine had died and he thought he could achieve the unusual marital feat of actually marrying someone he loved rather than someone the cultural rules said he could marry. Similarily stories like King Arthur rested on the revolutionary idea that Arthur could marry for love, and that his wife could wish to leave him for someone else. Similarly stories like Robin Hood and Maid Marian rested the fact that both were outlaws and so could do something unheard of in society, ''choose'' someone for love, to be their spouse. Indeed many of the mediaeval "romance stories" (whether ''Diarmuid and Grainne'' or ''Robin and Marian'', etc) in even suggesting "love", were revolutionary, hence their widespread banning and condemnation by religion.

	:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:In conclusion, the definitions we now use 'heterosexual', 'bisexual', 'homosexual' are less than adequate to describe ''anyone'' before the mid 19th century, indeed in many cases inadequate to describe anyone before the early to mid 20th century. James I, like most people of all classes, married for dynastic and family succession reasons. Unlike most, but something by no means unheard of, he seems to have chosen to restrict his romantic attachments not to mistresses but to men. If he was alive today, and didn't have dynastic requirements to produce an heir, he may very well fit into the category of "homosexual". Our modern day categorisations of heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual are of little use in categorising ''anyone'' before the 19th century, when the idea of marriage as relationship, not an alliance, became fashionable. (BTW the rising number of divorces today is directly a result of that change. Most marriages as late as World War II weren't romantic love affairs in the sense we presume of modern relationships. So one couldn't very well fall out of love with one's husband or wife. And breakups were advisable given that wives were still seen as chattel of their husbands with no independent means of financial support. Today's divorce rate rests significantly on the basis that modern marriage is based on love, love that can decline or die, leading either partner to leave a marriage and seek a new marriage without someone else they love. And one of the cultural phenomena to promote the idea of "romantic love leading to marriage" was Hollywood, both in its story lines and in the lives of its leading actors and actresses, where the idea of marrying the person you love — and if like Clarke Gable, Humphrey Bogart you found you loved someone more than your wife, divorcing her to marry the period you loved, whether Carole Lombard or Lauren Bacall, was a worldwide airing. Many of our grandparents and great-grandparents, who were not in love matches but matches set up for them, were astonished at the very idea.) [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 07:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		:::Like I said; leave it alone. This is not a Freudian article; but a matter of state. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 15:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		Complete nonsense. This is a bigraphical article. Biographical issues have to cover the lives of their subjects. That ''includes'' their sex lives. If someone had same sex relationships that has to included. If their sexuality was an issue that was commented on at the time, or has been commented on since, that has to be included. James's sexuality was speculated about at the time and written about since, so it is must in the article. If you have an "issue" with that, then don't write and edit biographical articles. ''Your'' issues are irrelevent here. James's issues are all that matters.[[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		How come most biographical articles don't mention sexuality, unless there is some controversial aspect of the person? Are you an activist in this topic of sex and James, all because of Fundamentalists quoting Leviticus from the KJV and a history of Henry's Buggery Act? I'm hardly projecting ''my'' personality into the article, just hoping you can restrict yourself. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland~~-Capitals~~.~~PNG~~\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		I'm a professional historian by trade. You obviously aren't. You are just pushing an agenda. [[User:Jtdirl\|<span style="color:#006666; background-color:orange">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png\|15px]]\<sup><font color="blue">[[User talk:Jtdirl\|(caint)]]</font></sup> 19:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

	It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)		It is obvious that you are projecting your personality onto the article and onto my person. Please refrain from doing so. I have no need for this crap. [[User:IP Address\|IP Address]] 19:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)