h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: James Ist, The First Stuart King of England - A87793960
Author: bobstafford - U3151547

Hello please comment, one of a set on the Stuart kings.

Hi Bob,

You leave me with several questions, this is a good thing because you have gotten me interest

>The list of James guardians or regents who governed during his minority is simply a roll of the most powerful men in Scotland. They were James Stewart Earl of Moray, Matthew Stewart Earl of Lennox, John Erskine Earl of Mar and James Douglas, Earl of Morton. It was later said of him that he was a coward, but he can hardly be blamed for this or his lifelong fear of the assassin’s blade

You mention the 4 separate regents, but you don't tell us how or why the power changed hands.

Also in the last sentence you say '...he can hardly be blamed..' I suspect you are talking about the last, but with 4 precedents this should really be clarified.




You skirt around the issue of religion, Protestant and Catholic. I think one of the most intriguing questions is why James I, the son of a Catholic Queen and the King of a nominally Catholic country (at the time) became a strong Protestant ruler. I think a short section about the King James Bible is an absolute necessity for this Entry.



In the section about his children you mention the oldest -Henry, was Prince of Wales. A brief look at history tells us that he was followed by Charles I, what happened to Henry?

If fact I really want to see a concluding section with the cause and year of his death, the legacy of his reign and the succession. As we are almost at the doorstep of the Civil War, I would like to see if any of the seeds were spread in this period.


F S

I have have gotten your interest


Q; In the section about his children you mention the oldest -Henry, was Prince of Wales. A brief look at history tells us that he was followed by Charles I, what happened to Henry?

A;as for Henry please look at A87794400 part 2 if that dose not do it please suggest ideas.



Q;You skirt around the issue of religion, Protestant and Catholic. I think one of the most intriguing questions is why James I, the son of a Catholic Queen and the King of a nominally Catholic country (at the time) became a strong Protestant ruler. I think a short section about the King James Bible is an absolute necessity for this Entry.

A; I will look into this and try and answer that question. but the short answer is James was Protestant his mother had abandoned him in her flight from Scotland, and his most influential guardians were Protestant.



Q; You mention the 4 separate regents, but you don't tell us how or why the power changed hands.

A; That I shall take care of.




I look forward to more comments

NB part 2 is a rough copy and not in edit.

If fact I really want to see a concluding section with the cause and year of his death, the legacy of his reign and the succession. As we are almost at the doorstep of the Civil War, I would like to see if any of the seeds were spread in this period.

I will get there dont worry

I think the manner of Darnley's assassination was so extreme (blowing up the tower he slept in) it is worth a mention.

I agree with others that James life needs to be seen in the context of the conflicts between Protestants and Catholics that dominated western Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

His mother's (Mary Queen of Scots) fate had a profound effect on his life and character. His life would have been very different if she had not been exiled from Scotland, and had her scheming to seize the English throne suceeded it is unlikely he would have suceeded his Catholic mother. One of his first acts as King of England is very telling - he had her scattered remains (as she had been excuted as a traitor her body was dismembered and the parts sent to the "far corners of the kingdom) and then intered in a purpose built tomb and chapel in Westminster Abbey that is a mirror image of the tomb and chapel of Elizabeth I on the other side of the same building.

It may be worth touching on the reasons those in positions of influence in England and Scotland brought about the dual monarchy - in the case of the former it eliminated a threat to state security as having a hostile northern nieghbour allied to France was a cause for grave concern; in the case of the latter it was pure economics, Scotland had always been poorer than England and during the Tudor period improvements in English industry and agriculture and the beginnings of Empire left Scotland far behind, in a desperate not to say foolish gamble James sponsored the badly planned and ill fated Panama expedition (Scotlands bid for empire) and in doing so he bankrupted his (Scottish) kingdom. In the words of the old Scottsh ballad "We were bought and sold for English gold, such a parcel of rogues in a nation" (the rogues referred to being the Scottish lairds)

James sexuality and his habit of promoting and governing through "favourites" made him very unpopular and led to rebellion in Scotland.

Ireland had become an Anglo-Norman colony during the 12th Century - I think you are referring to the Protestant Plantations into Ulster that occurred during Jame's reign, there had been earlier plantations around Dublin during Elizabeth I's reign but the bloody consequences of James plantations are still with us.

While Jamestown was the first succesful British settlement in what is now the United States there had been earlier attempts at colonisation and successful English colonies elsewhere in the Americas.

Jame's paranoia about and hatred of supposed "witches" is well documented but most of those who suffered as a result were most likely the victims of rumour and malicious gossip. I have been told James inserted the line "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" into his bible and that it did not occur in earlier versions (you may want to check the veracity of this story)

Finally it may be worth mentioning the Gunpowder Plot as it illistrates the religious tensions of the time and it is worth noting we English still celebrate an almost successful attempt to blow up James I and his government every year - the dummy on the bonfire might be called Guy but it really is cocling a snook at James especially as it falls on an old pagan festival

I shall have a sift through your interesting points.
This is one of 5 or maybe 6 entries and some are to be covered later I am considering an epilogue to contain these sort of points.


However your most interesting point is the King James bible version of "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" yes you are right its out of Exodus 22:18

The problem is the King James version was translated from Greko Roman texts,
"Thou shalt not suffer a venefica to live". in latin word "venefica" means "poisoner". So the correct translation should be: "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live".
King James's translator decided that the term "poisoner" was much the same as "witch" .

In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible the translation is: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live".

Who has it correct




In other translations of the Bible, there are even more variations of this passage is translated differently. which is the accurate translation King James version is not it appears.

Is this an example of scripture being deliberately misinterpreted to support anti Satanic propaganda.

Any more comments please

I've been meaning to comment on this but not had a chance to properly yet. Here are the notes I've made so far and typos spotted in the first couple of paragraphs:

Queens courtiers – Queen's
Preared - prepared
Privy Councils – council's

England had long been weary of invasion from the north by Scotland and her ally France. – weary or wary?

Sir Henry Carey was Elizabeth's cousin and the younger brother of Sir George Carey who was the Captain of Carisbrooke Castle (amongst other titles)

<BB<

All done plus a Carey footnote

Thanks for the interest

Sorry – I was planning on writing a proper reply yesterday, but ran out of time and so just quickly posted what I had written so far. So here is part II.

My first reaction is that there are a few footnotes that could be incorporated into the text.
I'd also split up the following section into two sentences: 'On being assured that all was well and they only wanted to see his face, he threatened to moon from the coach window, saying "So they can see my arse as well" to those who were used to Queen Elizabeth, this was very odd behaviour.'
as on first reading, it seemed that he said 'So they can see my arse as well' to those who were used to Queen Elizabeth. Not that those who were used to Queen Elizabeth found this behaviour very odd, which is what you meant.
He was the first English monarch to use the title "King of Great Britain and Ireland" – not sure about 'English', would it be better to read 'He was the first monarch to use the title..' ?

There are a few typos etc, such as:
King James bible – Bible
Gods appointed – God's
in England with with the Stuart
Jame's
have yet to ended in Ireland
as well as American spellings of colonisation, theatre, behaviour, honour, travelling

Other than those minor points, a good entry and I look forward to reading the next part in the series!

<BB<

Thats all done I hope

Please don't bother pointing out obvious typos unless they make the meaning unclear (as in the weary / wary one). If there is an obscure name in the entry that you know is spelt wrongly and the sub-editor might not know it, by all means point it out.

I think I have covered all the points for this entry --- some ideas mentioned will be added to later entries in this series as they will overlap a little time wise.

The help has been excellent thank you all so far, I await more comments

You say that when Elizabeth died, James, who was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, inherited the throne of England. I'm not clear on why. Was Mary related to Elizabeth? Was she her sister, or cousin, or what?

Mary was next in line to Elizabeth that's why the Catholics wanted to assassinate her and Mary could get the throne by right of succession.

Marys supporters made such an almighty mess of things Elizabeth was forced to be rid of her

James by right of secession became king of Scotland and took Marys place as heir to Elizabeth



I guess it should go in in the text

Sorry that should include the prior generation to make it clearer
Marys paternal grandmother was Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII's sister who had married James IV of Scotland

Eizabeth was his only heir so the Tudor line ended as she never married, it then reverted to the Stuart branch of the family who had become rulers of Scotland by the marriage into the Bruce family a generation or so before.

I don't understand this bit:

Sir Robert [...] became the first man to give James the news of the Queen's death. James [...] as a reward appointed Sir Robert to the post of Gentleman of the Kings Bedchamber. In doing this Sir Robert defied the orders of the Privy Council in London, as his actions were condemned as "contrary to all decency, good manners and respect" and James was persuaded to remove him from the post

YOu say "In doing this". In doing what? In informing the King? Or in accepting the post of Gentleman of the King's Bedchamber.

If the problem was him informing the King, why was it "contrary to all decency, good manners and respect", and why was James persuaded to remove him from the post?

If the problem was him accepting the post, then why had the Privy Council given him specific orders in advance not to accept this post? Was it something the King was likely to award to Sir Robert?


"James prepared for the journey for London and within the week on 5 April he was heading southward to take possession of his inheritance."
-- it may seem strange to some readers that when James was king of two countries, he would choose to leave his own one and live permanently in the other one. You should mention that England was a bigger, more populated and much richer country than Scotland.

"However he was the king and a Scottish king" -- I think this would be clearer if you said "He was the rightful King of England as well as being the King of Scotland".

"On 2 May, 1568, Mary fled from Loch Leven Castle. " -- this is a bit of a surprise. Mary is at this time Queen of Scotland, is she not? You just spring this on us without explanation. Then in the next line, two weeks later, she musters a large army. Would it not be better to explain that there was a war on, or a challenge to the Queen's position or whatever it was.

Was Moray really called James Stewart, spelled like that, and not Stuart? And what about Matthew Stewart?

THe paragraph which starts "James sent a blunt demand from York for more money " is in the section "James's Early Years", so it is misplaced. Move it to the next section "James, King and Scholar".

I think it would be worth putting in a paragraph after this one, saying "James was crowned King of England in ..." giving place and date. Also details of where he had his palace. Was it at Hampton Court?

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - you say that the King James Bible was translated from Greek and Latin.

1. Did they not have access to the original Hebrew?
2. You give what the Latin phrase was, but what was the Greek one?

You can't really draw the conclusion that you do unless you have all the facts to hand.

You say Elizabeth was born the only daughter, but this is not really appropriate. At the time she was born, there were only two children, so although she was the only daughter, it's an odd thing to say. And there were other daughters later on although none lived to adulthood.

conflict that was only to end in England with the Stuart dynasty -- this is ambiguous. Say "conflict that was only to end in England with the end of the Stuart dynasty"

The Protestant Plantations into Ulster that created during James’s reign -- this isn't a sentence. WHat did you intend to say?

"This would allow America unhindered by religious conflict, to prosper develop and into a great nation. "

You're simplifying things a lot here. Taking the lands of Ulster off the indigenous Catholics and giving it to Protestants who came across the sea from the east wasn't really that different from what happened in America, where they took the land of the indigenous Pagans and gave it to Protestants who came across the sea from the East. America's greatness was achieved, I think, by slaughtering the local people rather than making them into serfs as they did in Ulster. But this entry is not the place to make that point.

Thanks for that all done I think please comment.

The religious aspects have been toned down, they were added as the result of an previous post. I think they are best left out

"... the Protestant faithhas remained preeminent in the Americas" - this should probably be "North America" rather than the Americas. Pretty much everywhere south of Texas is Catholic.