We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
George Villiers, Sir George Villiersi teine poeg, sündis Brooksbys, Leicestershire'is, 28. augustil 1592. Villiers ei olnud loodusteadlane, "kuid oli silmapaistev selliste oskustega nagu tantsimine, vehklemine ja ratsutamine ning kuna neid kombineeriti erakordselt hea väljanägemise ja võluga oli ta õukondlasena eluks hästi varustatud. " (1)
Aastal 1611 kohtus Villiers salajase kambri härra Sir John Grahamiga, kes tegutses tema mentori ja elluviijana. Ta korraldas Villiersi tutvustamise kuningas James I -le, kellele Villiers kohe meeldis. Kogu oma valitsemisaja oli ta seotud atraktiivsete noormeestega ja Maurice Ashley sõnul oli tal nooruses tekkinud homoseksuaalsed tunded. (2)
Kuigi ta abiellus 1589. aastal Taani Annega ja ta sünnitas Henry (1594) ja Charles (1600), veetis kuningas James oma naisega vähe aega ja "keeldus naisega samas kohas elamast rohkem, kui ta saaks aidata." ja varsti pärast ühinemist asutati kuninganna Taani majja, saates teda harva tema pidevate edusammudega. " (3)
Nagu on märkinud Jenny Wormald: "On peaaegu oht unustada, et isegi kui kuningale omistatakse homoseksuaalne tegevus, mitte homoerootiline tunne, oli James vähemalt biseksuaalne ja saavutas edu, kus tema kolm eelkäijat olid ebaõnnestunud , troonipärijate pakkumisel, mis pärast eelmist pool sajandit tuli teretulnud kergendusena ”. (4)
Üks tema õukondlastest, Anthony Weldon, väidab, et Jamesil oli mitu "meessoost armastust" ja ta oli süüdi oma tunnete avalikus väljendamises: "Kuningas suudles neid pärast nii naeruväärset režiimi avalikkuses ja teatris, nagu ennegi. maailmas, ajendas paljusid ette kujutama, et pensioniealises majas tehakse asju, mis ületavad minu väljendusi mitte vähem kui minu kogemusi. " (5)
James pidas Villiersit äärmiselt atraktiivseks ja teda peeti "ilusaks kui jahileopard". (6) Piiskop Godfrey Goodman kommenteeris, et Villiers oli "kõige ilusama kehaga mees kogu Inglismaal; tema jäsemed olid nii hästi tihendatud ja tema vestlus nii meeldiv ja nii magus." (7)
Villiersiga kohtumise ajal oli kuningas Robert Carriga romantiliselt seotud. Temast sai kuninga lemmik, kui ta oli 20-aastane ja järgmisel aastal sai temast vooditoa peigmees. Kuningas, nagu teatati, "pigistab Carril avalikult põske, silub riideid ja vaatab teda jumalikult isegi teistega rääkides". Järgmise kaheksa aasta jooksul kogus Carr pidevalt kuningliku armumise materiaalset kasu ja talle anti suured valdused üle Inglismaa. (8)
Aastal 1613 hakkas Carr tegema plaane abielluda Norfolki 4. hertsogi Thomas Howardi poja admiral Thomas Howardi tütre Frances Howardiga. Howardite perel oli kuningas Jamesi üle kasvav mõju. Siia kuulusid Henry Howard, Northamptoni 1. krahv, Thomas Howard, Arundeli krahv ja Charles Howard, Effinghami isand. Nad kõik suhtusid roomakatoliku kirikusse ja soovisid liitu Hispaania kuninga Philip III -ga. Autori John Philipps Kenyoni sõnul Stuarts (1958): "Nad (Howardid) kutsusid Jamesit üles abielluma oma pojaga Hispaania Philip III tütrega ja kasutama tema tohutut kaasavara võlgade tasumiseks, eesmärgiga viia Inglise kirik Roomaga kooskõlla." (9)
Sir Thomas Overbury oli abielule kibedalt vastu, kuna oli mures Howardite perekonna kasvava mõju pärast. Ta tegi Jamesile oma tunded teatavaks. Ta lükkas tema kaebused tagasi ja pakkus talle suursaadikut, mis tähendanuks, et ta elab välismaal. Kui ta keeldus seda ametikohta täitmast, arreteeriti ta 21. aprillil 1613 ja viidi Londoni Towerisse. Overbury ähvardas Carrile kirjutatud kirjas, et avalikustab teabe Francis Howardi eelmise elu kohta. Overbury suri 15. septembril 1613. Kümme päeva hiljem abiellus Carr Howardiga. (10)
Aastal 1614 nimetas Carri Lord Chamberlainiks ja andis talle Somerseti krahvi tiitli. Siiski näitas ta ka oma armastust Villiersi vastu, andes talle kuningliku tassikandja ametikoha ning 1615. aastal sai ta rüütliks ja temast sai härrasmees. Talle määrati ka 1000 naela suurune aastapension. Carr kurtis oma uue rivaali üle. James vastas sellele, kirjutades kirja, mis tegi selgeks, et ta ei taha loobuda oma armastusest Villiersi vastu. Ta heitis Carrile ette tema "kummalisi rahutuse, kire, raevu ja üleoleva uhkuse vooge" ja "selle eest, et taandas end minu kambris lamamisest, hoolimata sellest, et ma palusin teid sadu kordi tõsiselt vastupidist paluda". (11)
Augustis 1615 hõivasid Villiers ja James sama voodi Farnhami lossis, kus kuningas oli edenemas. Roger Lockyer väidab, et see iseenesest ei tõenda, et neil kahel mehel olid homoseksuaalsed suhted: "Voodi jagamine ei olnud XVII sajandi alguses haruldane ega tähenda tingimata füüsilist lähedust. Ometi oli kõik märgid selle kohta, et kuningas ja Villiers olid jõudnud uude faasi ning Somerseti soosingu päevad olid loetud. " (12)
Autor Stuarts (1958) märkis: "Kahekümne kaheaastaselt oli George Villiersil see üpris küps mehelik külgetõmme, mis väriseb naiselikkuse piiril: pikk ja ilusate proportsioonidega, tal oli südamekujuline nägu, mis oli raamitud tumedatesse kastanikarvadesse ja lühike habe, peenelt kaardus suu ja kõrgesooliste tumesinised silmad ... Tema intelligentsus, kuigi see oli madalal tasemel, oli kahtlemata olemas ... Buckinghami poisilik flirtivus võimaldas tal karistamatult Jamesist üle astuda. " (13)
Villiers sai ka kuninga isakantsleri sir Francis Baconi toetuse. Ta kartis ka Howardi perekonna kasvavat mõju ja julgustas Jamesit tellima Thomas Overbury surma uurimise. Lõpuks ilmusid Robert Carr ja tema naine Frances Carr kohtusse mõrvasüüdistuse esitamiseks. Frances tunnistas täielikult, kuid Robert väitis, et tal pole Overbury surmaga midagi pistmist. Kohus ei uskunud teda ja paar mõisteti surma. James keeldus lubamast oma armukest hukata ja nad mõlemad vangistati Londoni Toweris. (14)
Villiersil oli hea positsioon Robert Carri võimult kõrvaldamise kasuks. Jaanuaris 1616 tegi James temast hobuse peremehe ja 27. augustil lõi ta temast vikont Villiersi ning kinkis talle kroonimaad väärtusega 30 000 naela. Temast sai ka peasekretär, kes registreeris väiteid kuningakohtu õukonda, mille väärtus on umbes 4000 naela aastas. 6. jaanuaril 1617 tõsteti ta Buckinghami krahvkonda ja järgmisel kuul sai temast salajase nõukogu liige. Kuningas ei varjanud oma tundeid oma lemmiku vastu. (15)
Septembris 1617 kaitses kuningas oma sõprust Buckinghamiga: "Ma pole ei Jumal ega ingel, vaid mees nagu iga teine. Seetõttu käitun nagu mees ja tunnistan, et armastan neid, kes on mulle kallimad kui teised mehed. olen kindel, et ma armastan Buckinghami krahvi rohkem kui kedagi teist ja rohkem kui teie, kes te siin olete. Ma soovin rääkida enda nimel ja mitte arvata, et see on viga, sest Jeesus Kristus tegi sama ja seetõttu ei saa mind süüdistada. Kristusel oli oma Johannes ja minul on George. " (16)
James oli sügavalt armunud Buckinghami, kes nimetas teda "Steenie'ks" (viide pühale Stephenile, keda Piibel kirjeldab kui "ingli nägu"). John Philipps Kenyoni sõnul nimetas ta teda ka oma "kallimaks", "armsaks lapseks ja naiseks". Ühel korral, kui Buckingham oli lühikesel puhkusel, kirjutas James talle, paludes tal tagasi pöörduda: "Mu ainus armas ja kallis laps. Ma palvetan, et kiirustaksite koju oma isa juurde, päikeseloojangul kõige kaugemal ... ja nii saatke Issand Mul on täna õhtul sinuga mugav ja rahul. " (17)
James tundis roomakatoliku kirikule kaasa ja jõudis järeldusele, et tema poeg Charles peaks abielluma Hispaania kuninga Philip III noorima tütre Maria Annaga. Buckingham toetas seda poliitikat, kuid Inglise parlament oli sellele vastu ja kutsus 1621. aastal üles taaskasutusseaduste jõustamist, mereväe kampaaniat Hispaania vastu ja Walesi printsi protestantlikku abielu. (18)
Francis Bacon, lordkantsler, juhtis kampaaniat kavandatud abielu vastu ja soovitas koos teiste parlamendiliikmetega, et Charles peaks olema abielus protestantliku printsessiga. James nõudis, et alamkoda tegeleks eranditult siseasjadega ega tohiks olla kaasatud välispoliitiliste otsuste tegemisse. (19)
Kuninga toetajad süüdistasid Baconit altkäemaksu võtmises ja korruptsioonis ning teda süüdistati ülemkoda ees. Mitte alates viieteistkümnendast sajandist pole parlamendis suurt krooniohvitseri kukutatud. (20) Baconile määrati trahv 40 000 naela ja "vangistus kuninga meeleheaks". Samuti keelati tal osariigi ametikohad ja tööd ning tal keelati istuda parlamendis või tulla kohtu äärele (12 miili). Trahvi ei kogutud kunagi ja tema vangistus Londoni Toweris kestis vaid kolm päeva. (21)
James keeldus lüüasaamisega leppimast ja ta korraldas Charlesile juhendamise hispaania keeles ja viimased kontinentaalsed tantsusammud. Veebruaris 1623 sõitis Charles koos Buckinghami hertsogiga inkognito režiimis Madridi, et kohtuda Hispaania kuningliku perekonna liikmetega. Teda kirjeldati kui "peeneks härrasmeheks kasvanud", kuid samuti täheldati, et ta nägi välja eristamatu ja oli vaid viis jalga neli tolli pikk. (22) Sel perioodil mõjutasid Charlesit tugevalt Buckinghami poliitilised ideed. (23)
John Morrill on märkinud: "Charlesi otsus alustada isiklikku kurameerimist diplomaatilisest ummikseisust väljumiseks viitas tema kasvavale enesekindlusele. Nüüd tegutses ta tavaliselt poliitilise agendina, kohtudes nõunike, välissaadikutega , ja Buckinghami hertsog, mõnikord isa juhendamisel, mõnikord iseseisvalt. Otsus reisida Hispaaniasse ja pidada näost näkku läbirääkimisi abielu sõlmimiseks oli edasine samm tema küpsemises. " (24)
Hispaania läbirääkijad nõudsid matši tingimusena, et Charles pöörduks roomakatoliku usku. Samuti nõudsid nad Inglismaal katoliiklaste sallimist ja karistusseaduste tühistamist. Pärast abiellumist pidi Maria Anna jääma Hispaaniasse, kuni Inglismaa järgib kõiki lepingu tingimusi. Charles teadis, et parlament seda tehingut kunagi vastu ei võta, ja naasis Inglismaale ilma pruudita. (25)
Nüüd otsustati välispoliitikat muuta ja James avas nüüd kõnelused liidu võimalikkusest Prantsuse Louis XIII -ga, mis hõlmas Charlesi abiellumist kuninga õe Henrietta Mariaga. See oli enneolematu, kui katoliku printsess abiellus protestandiga. Paavst Urbanus VIII andis loa alles siis, kui talle kinnitati, et leping sisaldab "kohustusi kuninganna, tema laste ja tema leibkonna usuliste õiguste kohta; samas kui Charles lubas eraldi salajases dokumendis katoliiklaste vastaste karistusseaduste täitmise peatada". (26)
Veebruaris 1624 suutis Buckinghami hertsog veenda enamikku parlamendiliikmeid uuele Hispaania-vastasele poliitikale ja pidama Prantsusmaaga lepingu üle läbirääkimisi. Parlamendile ei selgitatud aga, et kavandatava abieluga kaasneks suurem sallivus roomakatoliiklaste suhtes. (27)
Nende läbirääkimiste tulemusena kaotas parlament usalduse kuningas Jamesi vastu. Nad ei usaldanud teda enam ja ta oli sunnitud tegema mitmeid järeleandmisi. See hõlmas monopoolseadust, mis keelas üksikisikutele kuningliku monopoli andmise. Samuti nõustus James tegema tihedat koostööd parlamendiga, et tulla toime majanduskriisiga, mida riik sel ajal koges. (28)
James I suri 27. märtsil 1625. Nüüd sai Buckinghamist uue kuninga tähtsaim nõunik. Charles abiellus viieteistkümneaastase Henrietta Mariaga volikirja alusel Notre Dame'i kirikuuksel 1. mail. Charles kohtus temaga Doveris 13. juunil ning teda kirjeldati kui väikese kondiga ja peenikest ning "tema vanusele mõnevõrra vähe". (29) Teine allikas ütles, et ta on "naiivne nooruk, suured silmad, kondised randmed, väljaulatuvad hambad ja minimaalne figuur". (30) Caroline M. Hibbard pakub positiivsemat kuvandit, väites, et tal olid "pruunid juuksed ja mustad silmad ning magususe ja vaimukuse kombinatsioon, mida märkisid peaaegu kõik vaatlejad". (31)
Paljud alamkoja liikmed olid kuninga abiellumise vastu roomakatolikuga, kartes, et see õõnestab Inglismaa reformitud kiriku ametlikku asutamist. Puritaanid olid eriti õnnetud, kui kuulsid, et kuningas lubas, et Henrietta Marial lubatakse vabalt oma usku harrastada ja ta vastutab oma laste kasvatamise eest kuni nende 13 -aastaseks saamiseni. Veebruar 1626 Westminsteri kloostris, tema naine ei olnud tema kõrval, kuna keeldus osalemast protestantlikul usutseremoonial. (32)
Sel ajal osales kuningas Louis XIII Prantsusmaal kodusõjas protestantide (hugenottide) vastu. Parlament tahtis hugenoteid aidata, kuid Charles keeldus, kuna ta ei tahtnud oma naist ega õemeest häirida. Lõpuks lepiti kokku, et Prantsusmaale saadetakse kaheksast laevast koosnev laevastik. Kuid viimasel hetkel saatis Charles käsu, et mehed peaksid võitlema Louis XIII poolt, mitte vastu. Kaptenid ja meeskonnad keeldusid neid korraldusi vastu võtmast ja võitlesid prantslaste vastu. (33)
Charles oli valmis kuulutama Hispaaniale sõja. Inglise parlament eelistas otsese sekkumise asemel Euroopa maasõjasse suhteliselt odavat mereväe rünnakut Hispaania kolooniatele uues maailmas, lootes Hispaania aardelaevastike hõivamisele ja andis ainult 140 000 naela toetust, mis oli ebapiisav summa Charlesi sõjaplaanide eest. (34)
Charles oli sellest otsusest pettunud ja kutsus seega teise parlamendi. Seekord pidas Buckinghami hertsog pika kõne, kus "ta kaitses oma poliitikat, kinnitas neile oma pühendumust sõjale, sealhulgas mereväe rünnakule Hispaaniale, ja andis neile üksikasjad kuninga finantskohustuste kohta". Siiski juhtisid nad tähelepanu sellele, et riik ei saa majanduslanguse ajal endale rohkem makse lubada. Charles vastas parlamendi laialisaatmisele. (35)
Suvel 1627 üritas Buckingham aidata oma uusi hugenottide liitlasi Prantsusmaal La Rochelle'is. 12. juulil saabus Sablanceau'sse 100 laeva ja 6000 sõduriga Inglise vägi. Prantsuse 1200 jalaväe ja 200 ratsaniku vägi saare kuberneri markii de Toira alluvuses pidas luitete tagant maandumisele vastu, kuid Inglise rannapea säilitati. Piiramine kestis oktoobrini, mille jooksul ta kaotas 7000 -mehelise sõjaväe seast üle 4000. (36)
Buckinghami peamine kriitik alamkojas Sir John Eliot algatas kuninga peamise nõuniku vastu tagandamismenetluse. 1626. aasta mais esitas Charles Buckinghami Cambridge'i ülikooli kantsleriks, näidates toetust, ja lasi Elioti arreteerida koja ukse ees. Tema vangistamine tõi kaasa palju proteste ja kuningas oli sunnitud Elioti vabastama. Charles keeldus aga Buckinghami vallandamast ja saatis hoopis parlamendi laiali. (37)
Kuigi kuningas jätkas Buckinghami kaitsmist, oli ta avalikkuse poolt vihatud ja 23. augustil 1628 pussitati ta Portsmouthi pubis Greyhound surnuks. Palgamõrvar oli John Felton, sõjaväeohvitser, kes oli haavatud varasemas sõjalises seikluses ja uskus, et ta on Buckinghami edutamiseks üle antud. Siiski tegi ta selgeks, et tema tegu põhines tema usul alamkojas ja et "hertsogi tapmisega peaks ta oma riigile suurt teenistust tegema". (38)
Kahekümne kaheaastaselt oli George Villiersil küllaltki küps mehelik külgetõmme, mis väriseb naiselikkuse piiril: pikk ja ilusate proportsioonidega, tal oli südamekujuline nägu, mis oli raamitud tumedate kastanikarva karvade ja lühikese habemega. kõverdatud suu ja kõrgesooliste tumesinised silmad ...
Tema intelligentsus, kuigi see eksisteeris madalal tasemel, oli kahtlemata olemas ... Buckinghami poisilik flirtimine võimaldas tal karistamatult Jamesist üle astuda, kerkides esile pigem suurema mõjuga; tema kirjad mullitavad mõttetu sarmiga ja armastajate beebijuttudega, kuid isegi tema muutumatus valeditsioonis on muret.
Mina, James, pole ei Jumal ega ingel, vaid mees nagu iga teine. Kristusel oli oma Johannes ja minul oma George.
Sõjaline taktika kodusõjas (vastuse kommentaar)
Naised kodusõjas (vastuse kommentaar)
Portreed Oliver Cromwellist (vastuse kommentaar)
(1) Roger Lockyer, George Villiers, Buckinghami 1. hertsog: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(2) Maurice Ashley, Inglismaa kuningate ja kuningannade elu (1975), lk 182
(3) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 41
(4) Jenny Wormald, Kuningas James I: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(5) Anthony Weldon, Kuningas James I kohus ja tegelane (1650)
(6) Diane Purkiss, Inglise kodusõda: rahva ajalugu (2007) lk 15
(7) Pauline Gregg, Kuningas Charles (1984) lk 49
(8) Alastair Bellany, Robert Carr, Somerseti krahv: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)
(9) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 47
(10) John Considine, Thomas Overbury: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(11) Peter Ackroyd, Kodusõda (2014) lk 45
(12) Roger Lockyer, George Villiers, Buckinghami 1. hertsog: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(13) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 50
(14) Peter Ackroyd, Kodusõda (2014) lk 46
(15) Roger Lockyer, George Villiers, Buckinghami 1. hertsog: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(16) Kuningas James I, kõne eraõigusliku nõukogu koosolekul (september 1617)
(17) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 50
(18) Christopher Hibbert, Charles I (1968), lk 49-50
(19) Richard Cust, Charles I: Poliitiline elu (2005) lk 8
(20) Roger Lockyer, Tudor ja Stuart Suurbritannia (1985), lk 225
(21) Markku Peltonen, Francis Bacon: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(22) Maurice Ashley, Inglismaa kuningate ja kuningannade elu (1975), lk 187
(23) Richard Ollard, Clarendon ja tema sõbrad (1988), lk 24
(24) John Morrill, Kuningas Charles I: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(25) Pauline Gregg, Kuningas Charles I (1981), lk 85-87
(26) Caroline M. Hibbard, Henrietta Maria: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(27) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 60
(28) Barry Coward, Stuarti ajastu: Inglismaa 1603-1714 (1980) lk 158
(29) John Morrill, Kuningas Charles I: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(30) John Philipps Kenyon, Stuarts (1958) lk 63
(31) Caroline M. Hibbard, Henrietta Maria: Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat (2004-2014)
(32) Charles Carlton, Charles I: isiklik monarh (1995) lk 76
(33) Gerald Howat, Stuart ja Cromwellian välispoliitika (1974) lk 35
(34) Pauline Gregg, Kuningas Charles I (1981), lk 129
(35) Roger Lockyer, Tudor ja Stuart Suurbritannia (1985), lk 233
(36) Mark Charles Fissel, Sõda ja valitsus Suurbritannias, 1598-1650 (1991), lk 123-125
(37) Charles Carlton, Charles I: isiklik monarh (1995), lk 149-151
(38) Roger Lockyer, Tudor ja Stuart Suurbritannia (1985), lk 238
Selle aasta jaanuaris avaldatud The House of Lords, 1604-29, kujutab endast kümne aasta pikkuse kirjutamise ja uurimistöö kulminatsiooni, mille on läbi viinud neljast teadlasest koosnev meeskond, mida juhib dr Andrew Thrush. See kahest elulooraamatust koosnev köide, mis ulatub rohkem kui 1 600 000 sõnani, ja eraldi sissejuhatav küsitlus, täiendab ja täiendab parlamendi ajaloo sarja viimast täiendust 2010. aastal avaldatud kuueköitelisele Stuarti alamkojale ja selle liikmetele .
Parlamendi ajaloo viimaste köidete keskmes on 277 eakaaslase elulugu, kellel oli õigus istuda Lordide Majas ajavahemikus 1604–1629. 1640. aastal kogunenud parlament on kahes lisas.)
Kõige rohkem ruumi on loomulikult pühendatud selle aja juhtivatele poliitilistele tegelastele, sealhulgas Robert Cecilile, Salisbury esimesele krahvile, kes püüdis asjata lahendada krooni rahalisi probleeme Buckinghami esimese hertsogi George Villiersi abiga. parvenu kelle domineerimine Inglismaa poliitikas kahe järjestikuse kuninga lemmik- ja peaministrina vihastas „iidse aadli” liikmeid ja viis 1626. aastal tema tagandamiseni Canterbury peapiiskop George Abbot, kes aitas Buckinghami võimuletulekul ja elas seda kahetsedes. Thomas Howard, Arundeli 21. krahv, iidse aadelkonna juhtiv liige ja#8217, kes end esialgu Buckinghami pealiliitlaste hulka luges. Nendest individuaalsetest uuringutest leitakse palju uut. Näiteks väidetakse, et pikaajalises sissekandes prints Charlesist - tulevasest Charles I -st -, kes istus Walesi printsina nii 1621. kui ka 1624. aastal Lordides, väidetakse, et Charlesi kuulus kogelemine ei olnud mitte psühholoogilise trauma, vaid laienenud keele tagajärg. Makroglossiana tuntud seisund, mis tegi avaliku esinemise keeruliseks.
Elulugusid ei sisalda eranditult kõrged tegelased nagu Charles ja Buckingham või Salisbury ja Arundel, vaid need hõlmavad ka paljusid eakaaslasi, kes on vaesuse või vähese poliitilise tähtsuse tõttu pääsenud Oxfordi rahvusliku eluloo sõnaraamat: mehed nagu Hampshire'i eakaaslane William, kolmas lord Sandys ja inglise-iiri aadlik George Tuchet, 11. lord Audley ja Castlehaveni 1. krahv.
Neid väiksemaid poegi koheldakse aga sama hästi kui nende kuulsamaid vendi. Kõigi meeste karjääri kõrval Lordide Majas (eeldusel, et ta muidugi istus) leiavad lugejad üksikasju tema poliitilise karjääri, rahaasjade, usuliste veendumuste, kultuurihuvide, üldise iseloomu ja seksuaalsuse kohta tavad. Tõepoolest, need köited on oma detailides rikkalikult värvitud. Näiteks saame teada, et Buckingham naasis Hispaaniast 1623. aastal gonorröaga ja tema noorem vend Christopher Villiers, Anglesey esimene krahv, oli naeruväärne joodik, et Basil Feilding, lord Newnham Paddockes, oli nooruses pigem kalvinivastane, mitte veendunud kalvinistiks olime kõik arvanud ja et Henry Clinton, Lincolni teine krahv, oli nii vägivaldse meelega, et James I arvas, et teda valitseb allilma mõju. Samuti avastame, et Winchesteri neljas markii William Paulet oli väidetavalt nii hämar, et oma pulmaööl ta ilmselt ei teadnud, millisest otsast alustada, et Thomas, neljas lord Cromwell oli Dublini poe tüdrukute suhtes osaline ja et Henry, 7. koht Lord Berkeleyt domineeris nii palju tema naine, et tema enda korrapidaja andis talle hüüdnime „kahjutu Henry”. Parlamendivälised ajaloolased tunnevad nende köidete vastu sama palju huvi kui parlamenditeadlased.
Kahe eluloo köite täienduseks on 400-leheküljeline monograafia Lordide Kojast endast. See on jagatud kuueks suureks peatükiks ja vaatab lorde laiema pilguga kui Elizabeth Read Foster 1983. aastal Ülemkoja kohta tehtud uuringus. Kui Foster tugines peaaegu eranditult parlamentaarsetele allikatele, vaatab see uus uuring parlamendist kaugemale, et uurida Lordide arengut. Selgub mitmeid olulisi järeldusi. Kõige olulisemate hulgas on see, et isandad kogesid 1620ndatel aastatel midagi renessanssi. Enne seda kuupäeva varjutasid parlamenti üha enam alamliikmed, kelle liikmed üksinda kontrollisid parlamendi rahakotte.
Alates 1621. aastast puhuti aga Lordidele uut elu. Osaliselt oli see tingitud lordide ammu unustatud kohtulike volituste äkilisest taaselustamisest, eelkõige võimust läbi viia tagandamisprotsesse, mis seadis koja kesksele kohale ja äratas alamate kadedust. Selle põhjuseks oli aga ka aadlike hirm, et nende privileege kahjustatakse. Arundeli krahvi juhtimisel asutasid isandad oma esimese privileegide komitee, muutes sellega end aadli ametiühinguks. Teine tegur Lordide varanduse elavnemisel oli fraktsionalismi kasv, mis kandus üle ka parlamenti. Enne 1620ndaid pidasid isandad oma peamist rolli kuninga huvide kaitsmiseks. Buckinghami tõus ja aristokraatlike tiitlite müük muutsid seda kõike. See tõi kaasa selle, et Lordides tekkis nn opositsioonipoliitika. Rahva meelest hakati paljusid ülemkoja esindajaid, nagu Essexi ja Warwicki krahvid ning vikont Saye ja Sele nägema mitte kroonile alluvatena, vaid ühise heaolu eestvõitlejana. 1620. aastate lõpuks ei osanud keegi ette näha, et kakskümmend aastat hiljem ülemkoda, nagu ka monarhia, kaotatakse.
Lordide koda 1604-29 on nüüd saadaval Cambridge University Pressi kaudu. Lisateabe saamiseks klõpsake siin.
George Villiers, Buckinghami esimene hertsog
Aastal 1614 tutvustati Villiersit, kelle kohta öeldi, et ta on "kõige ilusama kehaga mees Inglismaal",  kuningas Jamesile, kes arendas tema vastu peagi tugevat kiindumust, nimetades teda oma "armsaks lapseks ja naiseks". Teda toetasid esialgu need, kes olid vastu kuninga praegusele lemmikule, Robert Carr Earl Somersetist. Järgnevatel aastatel tehti temast kiiresti rüütel, parun, vikont, krahv, marquess ja lõpuks hertsog.
Aorthorpe Halli restaureerimine Northamptonshire'is aastatel 2004–2008 paljastas varem tundmatu lõigu, mis seob Villiersi magamistoa Jamesiga. 
Villiers võttis juhtrolli paljudes Jamesi valitsemisaja poliitilistes ja sõjalistes sündmustes, millest paljud läksid väga halvasti, ja ta muutus väga ebapopulaarseks. Mõne jutu järgi sai temast Austria Anne, Prantsusmaa kuninganna (kelle abikaasa Louis XIII olevat olnud gei) väljavalitu.
Pärast Jamesi surma 1625 jäi Villiers James'i poja Charles I kasuks, kuid ta mõrvati Portsmouthis 1628. aastal.
Täna tähistatakse blogide kolmes esimest korda LGBT+ ajaloo kuu. Paul M. Hunneyball, Kaastoimetaja Lordide koda 1604-1629 projekti, alustab oma blogi järjega eelmisest LGBTHM -ist, ‘James I ja tema lemmikud: seks ja võim Jacobeani õukonnas ’. Selles uues ajaveebis uurib ta Buckinghami hertsogi seisukohtade arengut kohtus 1610. ja 1620. aastatel ning tema ja James I suhete keerukust.
Buckinghami 1. hertsog George Villiers on tänapäeval ilmselt kõige tuntum oma kümnendipikkuse suhtluse kaudu James I-ga. Ajaloolises mõttes on ta aga võrdselt tähelepanuväärne selle poolest, et ta on kahe järjestikuse monarhi, Jamesi ja tema poja Charles I peamine õukonna lemmik. enneolematu saavutus Euroopas tol ajal. Kui mõelda oma suhete kahe kuningaga väga erinevale olemusele, tundub Buckinghami saavutus veelgi tähelepanuväärsem. Esialgu tõusis ta esile, kuna homoseksuaalne James pidas teda füüsiliselt ja emotsionaalselt atraktiivseks ning see jäi nende asjaolu säilitavaks oluliseks kaalutluseks. Charles, vastupidiselt oma isale, jagas oma aja tavapäraseid homofoobseid eelarvamusi, ei kiindunud heaks Jamesi homodoolide vastu ja tundis alguses Buckinghami vastu sügavat vastumeelsust. Hertsog võttis temaga lõpuks enda kanda usaldusisiku, hädavajaliku nõuniku ja peaministri rolli. Emotsionaalselt reserveeritud Charles arendas hertsogi vastu sügavat ja kõigutamatut kiindumust, kuid nende sõprus oli kindlalt platoonilise iseloomuga. Asjaolu, et Buckingham suutis selle ülemineku nii edukalt ellu viia, tekitab mõningaid huvitavaid küsimusi tema suhete Jamesiga tõelise olemuse kohta.
Jakobide õukonnas otsisid rivaalitsevad rühmitused kuningaga avalikult mõju, edendades nägusaid noori mehi, kellest nad lootsid tema poolehoiu võitvat. Buckingham ise alustas oma õukondlikku karjääri Canterbury peapiiskopi George Abboti ja Pembroke'i kolmanda krahvi William Herberti kliendina, kes kasutas oma võlusid, et tõrjuda välja kuninglik lemmik, Somerseti krahv Robert Carr. Noor Villiers, kes oli väidetavalt tulnud kohtusse soodsat abielu otsima, asus oma uuele rollile aplausiga. Hiljem Gloucesteri piiskopi Godfrey Goodmani sõnul „oli ta Inglismaa ilusaima kehaehitusega mees, kelle jäsemed olid nii hästi tihendatud ja vestlus nii meeldiv ja nii magusa iseloomuga” (G. Goodman, kuningas James Esimese õukond, s.t. 225-6). Teine vaatleja, Sir Simonds D'Ewes, leidis, et ta on "täis delikaatsust ja nägusaid jooni, jah, tema käed ja nägu tundusid mulle eriti naiselikud ja uudishimulikud" (J.O. Halliwell (toim), Sir Simonds D’Ewesi autobiograafia ja kirjavahetus, i. 166-7).
George Villiers, Buckinghami 1. hertsog, u. 1616 (W. Larkin?)
George Villiers, Buckinghami esimene hertsog, 1625 (Peter Paul Rubens)
Neid tunnuseid saame tunda portreest, mis on maalitud, et tähistada tema loomingut 1616. Kuid üheksa aastat hiljem, pärast Charlesi liitumist kuningaga, hertsog soovis edendada hoopis teistsugust kuvandit, nagu on näha Rubensi ratsasportretist. Siin projitseerib habemega Buckingham teadlikult machismi ja jõu õhku ning nii valis ta end kogu oma karjääri jooksul esitleda.
Mida võiks see muutus meile rääkida tema suhetest Jamesiga? Seitse või kaheksa aastat sobis Buckingham tõhusama isiksuse kasvatamiseks. Kuningas jäi temast täielikult vaimustusse ja sai temast emotsionaalselt sõltuvaks. Nende säilinud kirjavahetuse põhjal otsustades tundis Buckingham oma kuningliku väljavalitu vastu märkimisväärset kiindumust. Kuid oli üks põhimõtteline probleem. See ei olnud kaasaegses stiilis geipartnerlus. James oli teatud mõttes ülim 17. sajandi suhkrutaat, kes pihustas oma väljavalitut rikkuse, tiitlite ja mõjukusega. Buckingham, kes oli pärit väiksematest härrasmeestest, tõusis ühiskonna tippkohtumisele, sel ajal olid hertsogkonnad tavaliselt reserveeritud kuningliku pere liikmetele. Ta saavutas kuningaga mitteametliku intiimsuse, mida teistele õukondlastele ei lubatud. Sellest hoolimata ei tohtinud ta kunagi unustada, et James kontrollis nende suhet. Kuningale meeldis kiidelda Buckinghami kui tema parima loominguga, mis tähendas kaudselt, et ta võib ta uuesti lahti teha. The duke’s lavish thanks for all the benefits that he received reflected his awareness that he had a lot to lose if circumstances changed, and he was painfully aware that his rivals at court sought his downfall by tempting James with other pretty young men. Over time Buckingham assumed the role of a surrogate son, and James took to signing his letters as ‘thy dear dad’. But the duke knew his place, and invariably described himself in reply as ‘your Majesty’s most humble slave and dog’ (D.M. Bergeron, King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire, 177, 182). There was surely an element of humour in that moniker, but it also reflected the fundamental imbalance in their relationship, and Buckingham’s perennial insecurity.
The duke’s success in finally winning over Charles offered him a way out of that situation. Exactly how the two men became such close friends has never been fully explained, but by 1623 Charles and James were effectively competing for Buckingham’s attention. Charles gained the upper hand that year when he travelled to Spain in a misguided bid to finalise his marriage to a Spanish princess, and the duke went with him. Once there, Buckingham adopted a flamboyantly heterosexual image, and acquired a reputation for womanizing. By the end of that trip, he and the prince were virtually inseparable, the proof coming a few months after their return to England. Charles, smarting from his treatment in Madrid, had abandoned any thought of a closer alliance with Spain, and was now intent on war. James, who had spent his entire reign promoting Anglo-Spanish peace, naturally opposed this strategy. Buckingham, while as solicitous as ever of his royal master’s wellbeing, sided with Charles. The now ailing king complained loudly about his favourite’s behaviour, but, as Buckingham had no doubt calculated, could not bring himself to dismiss him. These conflicts further enhanced the duke’s standing with Charles, and when the latter finally became king in March 1625 it was generally acknowledged that, in political and social terms, Buckingham’s position was now stronger than ever. Indeed, it was only an assassin’s knife that finally ended his dominance three years later.
Assessing same-sex love and desire in the early modern period is fraught with difficulty, and Buckingham’s case is no exception. His ability to switch between two radically contrasting modes of behaviour may seem strange to a modern eye, but such sexual fluidity was arguably less exceptional at the time. The undeniable warmth of his correspondence with James indicates a fair degree of genuine mutual affection, and indeed it’s hard to see how the duke could have sustained his role as royal favourite for so long without this. Nevertheless, when he had to choose, Buckingham valued his long-term security above loyalty to James, and this suggests that for him, ultimately, their relationship was based not on love but on the pursuit of power and wealth.
R. Lockyer, Buckingham (1981)
M.B. Young, King James and the History of Homosexuality (2016)
Biographies of Buckingham, Prince Charles, Archbishop Abbot, the earls of Pembroke and Somerset and Bishop Goodman will appear in the History of Parliament’s forthcoming volumes on the House of Lords 1604-29. A biography of Sir Simonds D’Ewes is being prepared for the volumes on the House of Commons 1640-60.
3. His Friend Became Famous
Though the public did not yet know either of their names, the teenage traveling buddies would prove to be a duo for the history books. The young Villiers’ partner-in-crime, John Eliot, grew up to be an influential statesman famous for his support of the rights of Parliament—an opinion for which he was repeatedly imprisoned as an adult.
But of the two, Villiers would make the biggest splash by far.
About George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham
George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (28 August 1592 – 23 August 1628) (surname pronounced /ˈvɪlɚz/ ("villers")) was the favourite, claimed by some to be the lover, of King James I of England and one of the most rewarded royal courtiers in all history.
5 Relations with Parliament, 1621-1624
6.1 War with Habsburg Austria, France, and Spain
He was born in Brooksby, Leicestershire, in August 1592, the son of the minor gentleman Sir George Villiers (1550-1604). His mother, Mary (1570 - 1632), daughter of Anthony Beaumont of Glenfield, Leicestershire, who was left a widow early, educated him for a courtier's life, sending him to France with Sir John Eliot.
Villiers took very well to the training he could dance well, fence well, and speak a little French. In August 1614, Villiers, reputedly "the handsomest-bodied man in all of England," was brought before the king, in the hope that the king would take a fancy to him, diminishing the power at court of then-favourite Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset.
Following Villiers' introduction to James during the king's progress of that year, the king developed a strong affection for Villiers, calling him his 'sweet child and wife' the personal relationships of James are a much debated topic, with Villiers making the last of a succession of favourites on whom James lavished affection and rewards. The extent to which there was a sexual element, or a physical sexual relationship, involved in these cases remains controversial. Villiers reciprocated the king's love and wrote to James: "I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had" and "I desire only to live in the world for your sake". Villiers gained support from those opposed to the current favourite, Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset. However, restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken 2004-2008, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and his favourite, George Villiers.
Under the king's patronage he prospered greatly. Villiers was knighted in 1615 as a Gentleman of the Bedchamber, and was rapidly advanced through the peerage: he was created Baron Whaddon and Viscount Villiers in 1616, Earl of Buckingham in 1617, Marquess of Buckingham in 1618 and finally Earl of Coventry and Duke of Buckingham in 1623. After the reductions in the peerage that had taken place during the Tudor period, Buckingham was left as the highest-ranking subject outside the Royal Family.
In the 1620s, Villiers acquired York House, Strand, which, apart from an interlude during the English Civil War, remained in the family until George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham sold it to developers for ꌰ,000 in 1672. He made it a condition of the sale that his name and title be commemorated by George Street, Villiers Street, Duke Street, Of Alley, and Buckingham Street, some of which have survived into the twenty-first century.
Buckingham with his wife Katherine Manners, their daughter Mary and son George, 1628Buckingham married the daughter of the 6th Earl of Rutland, Lady Katherine Manners, later suo jure Baroness de Ros, on 16 May 1620 despite the objections of her father. Buckingham was happy to grant valuable royal monopolies to her family.
From 1616, Buckingham established a dominant influence in Irish affairs, beginning with the appointment of his client, Sir Oliver St John, as Lord Deputy, 1616-1622. Thence, he acquired control of the Irish customs farm (1618), dominated Irish patronage at court, particularly with the sale of Irish titles and honours, and (from 1618) began to build substantial Irish estates for himself, his family and clients - with the aid of a plantation lobby, composed of official clients in Dublin. To the same end, he secured the creation of an Irish Court of Wards in 1622. Buckingham's influence thus crucially sustained a forward Irish plantation policy into the 1620s.
The 1621 Parliament began an investigation into monopolies and other abuses in England and extended it later to Ireland in this first session, Buckingham was quick to side with the Parliament to avoid action being taken against him. However, the king's decision in the summer of 1621 to send a commission of enquiry, including parliamentary firebrands, to Ireland threatened to expose Buckingham's growing, often clandestine interests there. Knowing that, in the summer, the king had assured the Spanish ambassador that the Parliament would not be allowed to imperil a Spanish matrimonial alliance, he therefore surreptitiously instigated a conflict between the Parliament and the king over the Spanish Match, which resulted in a premature dissolution of the Parliament in December 1621 and a hobbling of the Irish commission in 1622. Irish reforms nevertheless introduced by Lionel Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex, in 1623-1624 were largely nullified by the impeachment and disgrace of the pacific Lord Treasurer in the violently anti-Spanish 1624 parliament - spurred on by Buckingham and Prince Charles.
In 1623, Buckingham accompanied Charles I, then Prince of Wales, to Spain for marriage negotiations regarding the Infanta Maria. The negotiations had long been stuck, but it is believed that Buckingham's crassness was key to the total collapse of agreement the Spanish ambassador asked Parliament to have Buckingham executed for his behaviour in Madrid but Buckingham gained popularity by calling for war with Spain on his return. He headed further marriage negotiations, but when, in 1624, the betrothal to Henrietta Maria of France was announced, the choice of a Catholic was widely condemned. Buckingham's popularity suffered further when he was blamed for the failure of the military expedition under the command of Ernst von Mansfeld, a famous German mercenary general, sent to the continent to recover the Palatinate (1625), which had belonged to Frederick V, Elector Palatine, son-in-law of King James I of England. However, when the Duke of York became King Charles I, Buckingham was the only man to maintain his position from the court of James.
Buckingham led an expedition to repeat the actions of Sir Francis Drake by seizing the main Spanish port at Cฝiz and burning the fleet in its harbour. Though his plan was tactically sound, landing further up the coast and marching the militia army on the city, the troops were ill-equipped, ill-disciplined and ill-trained. Coming upon a warehouse filled with wine, they simply got drunk, and the attack was called off. The English army briefly occupied a small port further down the coast before reboarding its ships.
This was followed by Buckingham leading the Army and the Navy to sea to intercept an anticipated Spanish silver fleet from Mexico and Spanish Latin America. However, the Spanish were forewarned by their intelligence and easily avoided the planned ambush. With supplies running out and men sick and dying from starvation and disease, the fleet limped home in embarrassment.
Buckingham then negotiated with the French regent, Cardinal Richelieu, for English ships to aid Richelieu in his fight against the French Protestants (Huguenots), in return for French aid against the Spanish occupying the Palatinate. The aid never materialised, and Parliament was disgusted and horrified at the thought of English Protestants fighting French Protestants. The plan only fuelled their fears of crypto-Catholicism at court. Buckingham himself, believing that the failure of his enterprise was the result of treachery by Richelieu, formulated an alliance among the churchman's many enemies, a policy which included support for the very Huguenots whom he had recently attacked.
When the Commons attempted to impeach him for the failure of the Cฝiz Expedition (1625), the King dissolved Parliament in June to prevent his impeachment.
In 1627, Buckingham led another failure: an attempt to aid his new Huguenot allies besieged at La Rochelle in France. He lost more than 4,000 men out of a force of 7,000. While organizing a second campaign, he was stabbed and killed at Portsmouth on August 23, 1628 by John Felton, an army officer who had been wounded in the earlier military adventure. Felton believed he had been passed over for promotion by Buckingham. Felton was hanged in November and Buckingham was buried in Westminster Abbey. Buckingham's tomb bears a Latin inscription translated as: "The Enigma of the World."
The memory of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, is held sacred by the Villiers Club, an exclusive dining and debating society at Oxford University.
A fictionalised Buckingham is one of the characters in Alexandre Dumas, père's The Three Musketeers, which paints him as a lover of Anne of Austria and deals with his assassination by Felton. In Arturo Pérez-Reverte's novel, El capitán Alatriste, Buckingham appears briefly while on his expedition to Spain in 1623 with Charles I. He is also a central character in novels by Philippa Gregory, Earthly Joys, and Evelyn Anthony, "Charles, The King. He also appears, played by Marcus Hutton, in the Doctor Who audio drama The Church and the Crown, in which he leads an aborted English invasion of France in 1626.
Buckingham's daughter, Lady Mary Villiers, was the wife of the Royalist 1st Duke of Richmond. Richmond was the grandson of the 1st Duke of Lennox of the Seigneurs d'Aubigny Stuarts. His elder son Charles (1626 - 1627) died as an infant and the title was inherited by his younger son George.
George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham
George Villiers, Earl of Buckingham, became the favourite of James I after they first met in 1614. Villiers succeeded Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, as the king’s favourite after Carr’s fall from grace after the murder of Sir Thomas Overbury.
Villiers was born on August 28 th 1592 at Brooksby in Leicestershire. His father was a minor noble who had remarried and Villiers was born to his second wife, Mary Beaumont. He knew that in future years he would have to compete with his half-brothers for a share of his father’s modest estate. His mother was an ambitious woman and she saved enough for him to be educated in France. Here Villiers learned to dance, duel and ride with a degree of expertise. By all accounts Villiers was an athletic and well-built man. One contemporary described him as “no one dances better, no man runs or jumps better.”
James first met Villiers at Apethorpe in August 1614. James was forty-seven.
“He (James) was of middle stature, more corpulent through his clothes than his body, yet fat enough, his clothes ever being made large and easy, the doublets quilted for stiletto proof, his breeches in pleats and full stuffed……his eye was large, ever rolling after any stranger that came into his presence, in so much as many for shame have left the room, as being out of countenance….his legs were very weak….and that weakness made him ever leaning on other men’s shoulders his walk was ever circular, his fingers ever in that walk fiddling about his codpiece.”
James was immediately taken in by Villier’s appearance. In 1615, Villier’s was made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber. His advance after this was swift. In 1616, Villiers was appointed Master of the Horse, made a Knight of the Garter and became Viscount Villiers. In 1617, he became Earl of Buckingham and in 1619, he was made a Marquess.
Such a swift advance up the social order was bound to provoke negative thoughts with regards to both James and Buckingham and the latter certainly made enemies. It was not unusual for a king to have favourites – but the speed with which Villiers climbed the social ladder and was promoted was too much for many.
Their public displays of affection only served to bring the court into more disrepute. James referred to him as “my sweetheart”, “my sweet child and wife” and “my only sweet and dear child”. In response to this, Buckingham flattered the king at every opportunity. There can be little doubt that Buckingham knew what he was doing (he ended his letters to the king with “Your majesty’s most humble slave and dog”) and that by pandering to James he knew that he was enhancing his own position within the royal court. In 1617, James explained to the Lords why he was making Villiers Earl of Buckingham:
“I, James, am neither God nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man, and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf, and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George.”
One casualty of the rise of Buckingham was the demise in political terms of the Howard’s. In 1618, the Star Chamber, spurred on by Buckingham, prosecuted the Lord Treasurer, the Earl of Suffolk, leader of the Howard faction, for embezzlement. It ended any political influence the Howard’s may have had – but it also removed from power one of the few rivals Buckingham had in 1618. Buckingham used his influence over James to get Francis Bacon appointed to be the country’s senior law officer as Lord Chancellor. This suited James as Bacon was a strong supporter of the royal prerogative and he was now in a position to support the king when James had to justify its use. It also suited Buckingham as Bacon had the Duke to thank for his social and political advancement.
Buckingham was a shrewd manipulator of the king. He also knew the value of patronage – appointing his own men to positions of responsibility. They would support him and be grateful to Buckingham for their elevated status in society. One described Buckingham as thus:
“(A man of) a kind, liberal and free nature and disposition – to those that applied themselves to him, applauded his actions, and were wholly his creatures.”
In 1620, Buckingham married Lady Catherine Manners, the daughter of the Duke of Rutland. He swiftly became a very rich man as he built up a large clientage network of office holders and monopolists. He put his own supporters and family in positions of responsibility and during all of this self-advancement he had the full support of the doting James. Christopher and John Villiers both benefited from their brother’s position in society despite their own limitations. Buckingham’s mother became a countess in 1618, a marchioness in 1619 and a duchess in 1623.
However, far more damaging to James was the fact that he allowed Buckingham to involve himself in policy matters and decision-making. This was bound to alienate powerful groups in Parliament who felt more and more alienated from both the king and decision-making.
The Parliament of January 1621 to January 1622 started to reverse the trend towards Buckingham’s ever-expanding power base. Two men who had gained office via the patronage of Buckingham – Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Mitchell – were impeached by Parliament for monopoly offences. Lord Chancellor Bacon was also impeached for accepting bribes.
Buckingham was also a supporter of a marriage between Charles and the daughter of Spain’s Philip III – a policy that the majority of Parliamentarians did not support. In December 1621, Parliament produced the ‘Protestation’. This was deemed by James to be a sign that Parliament believed that it had the right to discuss foreign policy issues – something that he was adamant that they did not. James physically tore out the ‘Protestation’ from the House of Commons Journals with his own hands such was his anger.
Buckingham accompanied Prince Charles to Spain (1623) on what was to be a failed marriage mission. From this embarrassing failure, the nation witnessed a complete volte-face by James. War was declared on Spain and in May 1625 and Charles married Henrietta Maria of France.
The influence Buckingham had over James did not decline even in the king’s final months. In one of the last letters written by James to Buckingham in December 1624, James signed off with:
“And so God bless you my sweet child and wife and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.”
James died on March 27 th , 1625. This could have left Buckingham in a void both socially and politically, but he had spent time winning over Charles when he was a prince. Now that Charles was king, Buckingham neatly moved over to his new master and became his chief minister.
Charles and Parliament fell out nearly from the start of his reign. Whereas Parliament had been happy to give James a clean start, the same was not true for his son. Parliament attacked the religious policies of Charles – especially the relaxation of the penal laws against Catholics. With regards to Buckingham they vented their spleen at his foreign policy. His foreign policy was openly criticised as incompetent. Buckingham had signed treaties with Denmark and Holland for English participation in the Danish phase of the Thirty Years War where 8,000 men out of 12,000 died on board their ships without even landing in the Netherlands he had also masterminded the marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria, a French Catholic, that was far from popular he had also lent Cardinal Richilieu eight boats which were used to attack the Huguenot stronghold at La Rochelle. However, he failed to get France to commit herself to greater involvement in the Thirty Years War. Parliament voted through only limited taxation to finance Buckingham’s foreign policy and this lack of money was a major reason for its failures. As an example, Buckingham wanted an armada to attack Cadiz. 15,000 men were gathered together for this venture in October/November 1625. It was a dismal failure due to the poor training that was given and the poor equipment. Buckingham took the blame for this.
In 1626, Parliament, led by radicals such as Sir Edward Coke, became even more critical of the king’s chief minister and started impeachment proceedings against him. Charles responded by dissolving Parliament. Buckingham reversed his previous foreign policy. Now in support of the Huguenot defenders at La Rochelle, he led 6,000 men to the Isle de Rhé in July 1627. He left in November 1627 having achieved nothing except the loss of nearly half his force. “Since England was England, it received not so dishonourable a blow.” (Denzil Holles)
In 1628, Parliament continued to attack Buckingham and Coke called him the “grievance of grievances”. Parliament sent a remonstrance to Charles in 1628 that declared that they feared for England’s religion, her standing in Europe and her success in the Thirty Years War if Buckingham continued in power. Charles merely prorogued Parliament (June 1628).
Clearly protected by the king, Buckingham confidently went to Portsmouth to start organising another sea-going venture. Here, John Felton, who had taken part in the disastrous Cadiz and Isle de Rhé ventures, murdered him on August 23rd, 1628. Buckingham’s funeral was held at Westminster Abbey where soldiers formed an armed guard to protect the coffin from the cheering crowds.
George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham
This highly ambitious son of a Leicestershire knight rose to be the favourite of James I, and of his son Charles I, on the strength of his charm and good looks. He was full of brave schemes, but lacked the good sense to carry them out effectively. As Lord High Admiral he bungled expeditions to Cadiz and La Rochelle, and his diplomatic incompetence led him to become the House of Commons' 'grievance of grievances'. At the age of 36 he was assassinated by a fanatic while in Portsmouth. This portrait, which shows him in his garter robes, almost certainly commemorates his installation as a Knight of the Garter in 1616.
Linked publications back to top
Handsome and ambitious, George Villiers became the most notorious of James I's favourites. He was a younger son from a minor Leicestershire gentry family and caught the king's attention during a hunt at Apethorpe in Northamptonshire. Opponents of Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, saw an opportunity to replace him with Villiers in the king's favour and secured Villiers' appointment as Royal Cupbearer. He flourished and was elevated by the king with astonishing speed through the ranks of the aristocracy, being made Duke of Buckingham in 1623. He became one of the king's leading ministers but was widely regarded as corrupt and extravagant, and although his influence continued under Charles I, he was blamed for a number of military failures while serving as Lord High Admiral he was assassinated in Portsmouth in 1628 by a soldier who had served under him in France. This portrait celebrates Villiers' installation as a Knight of the Garter and elevation to the peerage in the summer of 1616, which was an important indication of his intimacy with the king. His luxurious robes are drawn back to focus attention on his legs, and he wears the garter, bearing the Order's motto Honi soit qui mal y pense ('Shame be he who thinks evil of it'), below his left knee.
This splendid portrait has undergone some changes. Acquired by the Gallery with the background curtains painted green, it was so displayed until 1985, when close examination revealed fragments of paint of the present colour which under analysis proved to be the original. Skilfuly restored to its full glory, by removing the green paint and matching the garments, we can now enjoy the voluptuous splendour of its original colour scheme.
George Villiers was the most notorious of James I&rsquos favourites: men admired by the King, with whom he developed what some regarded as unhealthily close and dangerously dependent relationships. Handsome and charming, Villiers was promoted rapidly at court and as a duke and one of James&rsquos leading ministers, he had considerable power. An effective administrator in some areas and a knowledgeable collector of art, he was widely regarded as corrupt and extravagant, and was blamed for various military failures. He was assassinated by a disenchanted soldier at the age of thirty-six.
William Larkin (d.1619) was one of the most accomplished portrait artists of the Jacobean period. He and his studio painted a large number of dramatic full-length portraits, often including spectacular textiles, as well as more intensely focused head-and-shoulders portraits. Buckingham is depicted here in his lavish robes as a Knight of the Garter.
Meet the English nobleman who may have been King James’ boyfriend
What it’s about: Born in England in 1592 as the son of a “minor gentleman,” George Villiers may have gone through life as merely a handsome rich guy, had he not attracted the notice of James I (also called James VI, as he was the king to unite the Scottish and English crowns, and was the sixth King James of the former, and first of the latter). Villiers was a favorite of the king, and shot through the aristocratic ranks, becoming a knight, baron, viscount, earl, marquess, and then duke in rapid succession between ages 21 and 30. (The title of duke had been retired some time earlier, so this promotion made Villiers the highest-ranking person outside the royal family.) His close relationship with the king sparked speculation, then and now, that the two men were lovers, despite the 26-year age gap.
Biggest controversy: As James heaped title upon title upon Villiers, he also gave him jobs of increasing importance at court. At age 21, members of the court pushed for Villiers to become Royal Cupbearer, hoping he would supplant the King’s previous favorite, Robert Carr . (He did). The following year, Villiers was knighted and named Gentleman Of The Bedchamber . (There’s nothing ambiguous about the name of the role, which was to serve in intimate duties like helping the king dress.) A year after that, Villiers became Master Of Horse and a Knight Of The Garter . The year after that he was made an earl, and the year after that he was named Lord Admiral Of The Fleet. And that’s when the trouble began.
In 1623, after becoming the official Duke Of Buckingham, he was charged with helping arrange the Prince Of Wales’ (the future Charles I ) marriage to Maria, the Spanish Infanta. The plan collapsed, and “Buckingham’s crassness” may have been the cause. The Spanish ambassador insisted Buckingham be executed for his (unspecified here) behavior, but Villiers called for war on Spain instead. He tried to shore up relations with France by betrothing Charles to Henrietta Maria, King Henry IV’s youngest daughter, but the idea of the English king marrying a Catholic was wildly unpopular. To make things worse, Villiers gave military aid to France’s Catholic Chief Minister, Cardinal Richelieu , against his Protestant enemies, in return for help attacking Spain.
That attack failed—an attempt to burn down Spain’s main port was aborted when the sailors captured a warehouse full of wine and got drunk instead of attacking. The Spanish fleet escaped a planned ambush. And Villiers had to retreat from a naval skirmish he fought alongside the French. He blamed Richelieu, and soon sided against him and with the French Protestants he had only recently been fighting against. Through the whole mess, Villiers’ popularity with the English people plummeted, although he never lost the support of James or Charles.
Strangest fact: We don’t know for certain whether Villiers and James I were lovers because of 17th-century England’s love of flowery prose. Our ideas on masculinity have changed dramatically in the last 400 years. It wasn’t uncommon for platonic male friends of the era to speak and write of their friendship in ornate language that, in modern times, would only be used for a romantic overture, and even then seen as a bit much. The King ended a letter to Villiers with, “God bless you, my sweet child and wife.” The Duke responded, “I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had.” Apparently we weren’t doing “phrasing” in 1623.
Thing we were happiest to learn: Villiers was quite a patron of the arts , commissioning paintings (including two Rubens ), financing plays, and buying collections of rare books (including the first book in Chinese to be donated to Cambridge’s library). However, a good deal of his patronage seems to be self-serving—the play he financed was an anti-Spanish satire he intended as propaganda. And the paintings he commissioned were mostly of himself, looking regal, in an attempt to impress and remind people of his standing.
Thing we were unhappiest to learn: Villiers was corrupt as all get-out. He almost immediately used his various positions of influence to “prodigiously enrich his relatives.” He had his friend Francis Bacon appointed Lord Chancellor, but threw him under the bus when Parliament investigated the bribery and “financial peculation” the two men engaged in.
Villiers also abused Britain’s habitual abuse of Ireland, selling Irish titles, controlling Irish customs (the import/export kind, not the step-dancing kind), and prolonging England’s plantation policy (more on that in the next section) for his own financial gain. Twice, Parliament tried to impeach Villiers, but in both instances, he convinced the King to dissolve Parliament for ostensibly unrelated reasons.
Three years after James’ death, Villiers (still supported and employed by the new king, Charles I) was stabbed to death by John Felton , an army officer who had been wounded in one of Buckingham’s campaigns, and believed he had been passed over for a promotion unfairly. Villiers was so disliked by that point that Felton was a national hero, even after he was hanged for murder.
Also noteworthy: Britain’s plantation policy toward Ireland had devastating short- and long-term effects. While ruling over the Emerald Isle, Britain seized property from Irish landowners and gave it to English settlers, creating an English, protestant ruling elite, and an Irish population who were essentially serfs who weren’t allowed to own land in their own country, and in some cases weren’t even allowed to rent it as tenant farmers. At one point, less than 10 percent of the island was owned by Irish Catholics, and Parliament once proposed moving the entire Irish population to the western third of the country, an idea that failed only because of a lack of willing English settlers to re-fill the other two-thirds.
As it is, so many Irish were forced out of the northern part of the country, mostly to be replaced by Scots, that upon Irish independence, those Protestant-majority counties remained part of the U.K., which led to partition of the island and a 30-year guerrilla war .
Best link to elsewhere on Wikipedia: So, back to Villiers’ job as Gentleman Of The Bedchamber . From 1650 to 1837, it was an official office, usually held by a member of the peerage (according to the timeline here, the positions seems to have originated with Villiers, although his own page doesn’t mention that). Duties included attending to the king when he ate in private, helping him dress, and insuring he wasn’t disturbed while asleep or using the bathroom. As unglamorous as this all sounds, it was a sought-after position, as it naturally made the office-holder a close confidant to the monarch. But just so we’re clear on how unglamorous it was, it was quickly combined with an older title, the Groom Of The Stool , who was, as Wikipedia delicately puts it, “responsible for assisting the king in excretion and ablution,” although in practice, the Groom Of The Stool acted more as the king’s personal secretary.
Further down the Wormhole: Villiers was a notorious figure in both history and fiction. He’s met Doctor Who (in 2002 audio drama The Church And The Crown , not the TV series), has appeared in numerous historical fictions of the era (most recently in Howard Brenton’s 2010 play Anne Boleyn), and shows up as a character in Les Trois Mousquetaires , known to American audiences as The Three Musketeers. The book describes him as “the favourite of two kings, immensely rich, all-powerful in a kingdom which he disordered at his fancy and calmed again at his caprice,” and called his life, “one of those fabulous existences which survive, in the course of centuries, to astonish posterity.” No less astonishing was the life of the book’s author, Alexandre Dumas , the grandson of a slave, the son of one of Napoleon’s generals, and one of the most widely read French author of all time. We’ll hear his story next week.
Host of the podcast Why Is This Not a Movie? His sixth book, The Planets Are Very, Very, Very Far Away is due in fall 2021. He tells people he lives in New York, but he really lives in New Jersey.
English Historical Fiction Authors
Katherine Manners was the daughter of Francis Manners, 6th Earl of Rutland and Frances Knyvett. After the death of his first wife Rutland married Cecily, the daughter of Sir John Tufton, who bore him two sons who died in apparently mysterious circumstances which were the centre of a notorious witchcraft case. Their deaths resulted in Katherine becoming the heir not only to the Knyvett property from her mother, but also to the unentailed estates in Yorkshire and Northamptonshire.
Portraits of Katherine show her to have been a rather plain woman, but doubtless her inheritance more than made up for her lack of beauty, and Buckingham and his mother opened negotiations. However, there were complications: Rutland was a Roman Catholic and the king would only permit his favourite to marry a Protestant, therefore pressure was brought to bear upon Katherine to abandon her religion. Rutland may well also have heard the talk and speculation about the exact nature of King James’s intense relationship with his handsome young favourite the Earl was often at court and must have witnessed the very public display of kissing and caressing. The amount of dowry demanded, too, was exorbitant and Rutland was offended. The negotiations floundered, but Buckingham and Mary’s solution to the deadlock was a plan which reflects badly on them both.
In March 1620 Mary visited the Countess of Rutland in the absence of the Earl, and invited Katherine to dine with her, promising to bring her back home before night-fall. It has been commonly assumed that the invitation was to Mary’s Leicestershire home at nearby Goadby Marwood. However, Mary brought the innocent girl to her lodgings at the Gatehouse in Whitehall. Even worse, Katherine stayed overnight, and so did her suitor, despite the fact that his own lodgings were within walking distance. The next day Katherine was returned home, but her outraged and furious father refused to receive her at Belvoir. The fact that Buckingham had also slept under the same roof ensured that Katherine’s reputation was ruined. Rutland was now forced into the position of insisting that Buckingham marry his daughter to save both her and the family’s honour.
The affair caused great scandal and despite Buckingham’s importance, the marriage did not take place at court with the usual lavish and lengthy entertainments, instead the couple were married privately in 1620, witnessed only by the Earl and the King.
The Buckinghams lived a lavish life-style, but it seems clear that this was not the fairy-tale life which Katherine had imagined. Perhaps she had unrealistically believed that Buckingham would leave his life at court and devote himself exclusively to her, and in a bitter, reproachful letter in 1627 she told him that, ‘… there is none more miserable than I am, and till you leave this life of a courtier which you have been ever since I knew you, I shall think myself unhappy.’
Buckingham again outraged convention and stretched Katherine’s devotion to the uttermost when he travelled to Paris in May 1625 to escort England’s new Queen, Henrietta Maria, to her new home. The English favourite scandalised the French court by blatantly making love to the French Queen Anne of Austria, giving scant thought to his pregnant wife at home. The Duke’s obsession with Anne, which he did not try to disguise, must have caused Katherine great heartache, and he made determined attempts to see the queen again.
The evidence suggests that although Buckingham was never in love with his wife he nonetheless genuinely cared for her, and notwithstanding his inability to remain faithful, treated her well. When he discovered that Katherine had been ill, perhaps seriously, while he was in Madrid, he seems to have been genuinely alarmed, confessing his adultery and asking for forgiveness, and even telling her he would return home if she was still sick. Katherine was aware of her husband’s weakness, and comforted by his concern for her, she was able to be sufficiently magnanimous to tell him that he was a good man save for his one sin of "loving women so well."
The increasing attacks upon the Duke during the first three years of Charles I’s reign, and the attempts by Parliament to impeach him in 1626 caused Katherine serious alarm. The Duke survived because of the King’s deep attachment to him, but Katherine and his mother and sister were devastated to hear that Buckingham intended to command a naval expedition to La Rochelle to relieve the Protestant Huguenots in the summer of 1627. Such was Katherine’s distress that Buckingham promised her that he would not accompany the fleet, and she wrote to him several times reminding of his promise to her, telling him in one letter that, "I hope you will not deceive me in breaking yours, for I protest if you should, it would half kill me."
However, Buckingham lied and left without saying goodbye. When she realised that he had really gone, Katherine told him she could almost wish herself dead, but although she had failed to keep her husband at home, her letters indicate her continued attempts to control his behaviour.
Buckingham and Charles planned another attempt to liberate La Rochelle, but this time Katherine refused to allow him to quietly slip away, determinedly accompanying him to Portsmouth in August 1628. Fortunately she was still in her bedchamber when the Duke was stabbed to death by John Felton.
The Duchess returned to her Catholic faith after Buckingham’s death. The king, whose devotion to the Duke had matched her own, removed his beloved friend’s children from her care and had them brought up with his own children. Katherine again occasioned the king’s wrath when she married the Irish Randal MacDonnell, then Viscount Dunluce, in 1635 to general censure. Katherine’s second marriage was equally eventful but seems to have been a far more equal partnership, with Katherine playing a leading role. MacDonnell was deeply distressed when she died in November 1649.
Living through a time of political upheaval and the tumultuous events of the Civil War, Katherine Manners was fiercely loyal and passionately devoted to her two husbands, even to the extent of defying convention and incurring the displeasure of her father and the king to marry the men of her choice.
Pamela J. Womack is the author of Darling of Kings, published by Hayloft Publishing Ltd., an historical novel which tells the tragic story of the friendship between Charles I and George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham. She has also written An Illustrated Introduction to the Stuarts, published by Amberley Publishing Ltd. She is currently writing the Duke of Buckingham’s biography.