Was King James a Homosexual?

Too many modern historians and TikTok university graduates like to regurgitate the slogan that King James 1 was involved in Homosexual acts and relationships. Many people point to his numerous bedroom meetings, or the fact that many of his male advisors and soldiers were well-paid and spoiled. Others point to the closeness of male relations at that period, too. But do these attacks stand historical critique? Or are they just slogans? Does this in any way discredit the Bible? After all, isn't it called the "King James" Bible?

King James Himself

To begin, we must clarify that King James had no involvement in the direct translation process; he only authorized the idea to begin with. He was considered one of England's greatest monarchs, uniting Scottish tribes with the rest of England to form what was to be called the British Empire. At the time, the church was the only body that had access to the Bible in English, as many people like John Wycliffe were attempting to translate it into English for the common people. King James took notice of this trouble and made an order for a standardized English translation to be made for the commoner.

In 1603, James ordered his court to hire 54 of the most trained translators of the time to travel to London and return to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts for accurate translation into the English of the day, thus birthing the KJV Bible. When it was first made, it wasn't called the King James Version, but rather a simpler name, the Commoners Bible, or simply The Bible.

James even wrote multiple love letters to his wife, where he calls her "our dearest bedfellow" (Hustavis Paine, The Men Behind the King James Version, Pg 4). He also said, "...If you had a good wife yourself, you would think that all the honor and worship you could do to her would be well bestowed." King James was a happily married man with five children (though only three survived infancy). He loved his wife, and even during the meeting for the KJV, he said he thought it acceptable to say you worship your wife, and talked highly of both his wife and kids.

James also wrote letters to his son Henry called Basilikon Doron. Some quotes taken from a listed source are shown below:

“But the principal blessing [is] in your marrying of a godly and virtuous wife … being flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone. … Marriage is the greatest earthly felicity” (p. 43).

“When you are married, keep inviolably your promise made to God in your marriage” (p. 45).

“Abstain from the filthy vice of adultery; remember only what solemn promise ye made to God at your marriage” (p. 54).

“There are some horrible crimes that ye are bound in conscience never to forgive: such as witchcraft, willful murder, incest, and sodomy” (p. 48).

As you can see, James encouraged his son to stay faithful to his marriage and abstain from and despise sodomy and adultery.

The Kings Bedroom

Many critics like to point towards the many meetings that James held in his bedroom, claiming it raises reasonable suspicion that he was gay. They say that he sought out private areas where his sodomy would be unwitnessed. Despite this interpretation multiplying unnecessary explanatory entities (violating Occam's Razor), it falls short of the historical context of the bedroom meetings and the King's charges of homosexuality.

It is true, King James did hold meetings in his bedroom, but there's something else to be kept in mind. The most secure place for a King was his bedroom, where he slept. It was the most guarded and secure place in the kingdom. This is the place where secrets can be revealed, and hence, many Kings used their bedrooms as meeting places where extremely important matters were dealt with. So the blunt fact that he held a meeting in his bedchambers raises no eyebrows about sexual acts, as it was commonplace for Kings and Queens to do such. King James also had health issues, including Gout and kidney struggles, which made him fall back on caretakers and certain people. Which would entail people attending to him in his bedchamber.

The Kings Enemies

We must not forget that James was a King, and Kings have many enemies to make. James was not English, but rather a Scott. His mother, Mary Stuart, was executed for treason against Queen Elizabeth. It was the perfect brewing pot for enemies to spawn. Now, all of James' sexual charges were made years after he died, and he had seven main detractors. These include:

1. Sir John Oglander

2. Francis Osborne

3. Sir Edward Peyton

4. Sir Simons D'ewes

5. John Hacket

6. David Moysie

7. and Anthony Weldon

All of these were James' political and religious enemies; they were all anti-Scottish; they all waited until James died to spread rumors and gossip about him; they all received some form of denial of a request from James; they all never witnessed the events they accused James of; and they were not eyewitnesses to any sodomy. Stephen Coston, in King James and the Hearsay of Homosexuality, says, "All the accounts, every single one to the last man, rely upon gossip, innuendo, speculation, conjecture, theory, fear, or hypothesis." David W. Daniels with Chick Tracts says, "It's hard to convict someone without any evidence" regarding the accusations against James.

One such man, and one of the main attackers, was Anthony Weldon, who was excluded from King James' court and swore vengeance for it. He waited a whole 25 years after King James died to write a paper about James' homosexuality. In 1650, he released his paper, which was largely ignored at the time, mainly because people who knew King James were still alive to refute it. Anthony didn't publish the book; someone else published it after his death. There was also a pamphlet about it that was penned by Anthony, also after the occurrence of his death. So it seems more likely that someone may have altered the words or entire document after Anthony died and then published it and penned other documents under his name (while he was dead).

Stephen Coston argues in "King James the VI of Scotland and the I of England Unjustly Accused?" that the charges were slanderous and untrue. The charges were made by James’ enemies only after he died, and historian Maurice Lee, Jr., says, “Historians can and should ignore the venomous caricature of the king’s person and behavior drawn by Anthony Weldon” (Great Britain’s Solomon: James VI & I in His Three Kingdoms, Pg 309-310).

It seems as if James' enemies waited until he was dead to accuse him of events that he couldn't defend, since he was dead! Moreover, the fact that all the reports were made by his political and religious opposition lends more reliability to the accusations being false and born out of hatred or envy.

Getting With the Times...

At the time, intimate non-sexual relations between men were not uncommon. As one of the sources for this article states:

“While at Cambridge, William Sancroft, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, had such a relationship with his roommate, Arthur Bonnest. 'They lived together, read together, and slept together.' When Bonnest contracted TB and had to leave the school, the two continued to correspond. Bonnest wrote: 'Thou art oftener in my thoughts than ever; thou art nearer me than when I embraced them. Thou sayest thou lovest me; good, well repeat it again and again.' Adam Nicholson, who records this from Sancroft’s personal correspondence, observes: 'The age was at ease with unbridled but apparently quite unsexual love between men' (God’s Secretaries, p. 132). (https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/was_king_james_a_homosexual.html).

Growing up in all-male environments in schooling, universities, court meetings, and other events, it is not unexpected that the closest relations between elite men back in that day were probably between... well... other elite men!

Conclusion

Even if James were gay, that changes nothing. King James had nothing to do with the KJV translation other than initiating and authorizing it to be done. The name "King James Version" was not even applied to the translation until the 1800s, when people started making modern English translations from the old 1600s English the KJV was written. Only then did people apply the name King James to it to differentiate between it and other translations. Also worth noting, the translation was not private; it was the most open translation ever done, so no fabrications were done in a dark cave somewhere. Scholars were brought from around the world; Over 54 people were involved, with the king only introducing the concept.

It seems to me that King James 1 was not a homosexual. With the context in place surrounding the charges, and taking into account the fact that kings hold meetings in bedchambers and the male relations of the time and environment, we can safely say that King James was in no way a homosexual.

Here are some interesting reads that also aided in research for this article:

1. https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/building-an-inclusive-and-growth-led-economy-and-society/mary-george-homosexual-relationships-in-the-time-of-king-james-i-were-forbidden-but-not-uncommon

2. https://www.chick.com/information/article?id=was-king-james-a-homosexual&srsltid=AfmBOorOigZl3gyyg0W5WtE-HYkPj-LDx9Agea7G5oJG47hu0yqbOmGc

3. https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/was_king_james_a_homosexual.html