Throwback Thursday: King James & The Virgin Queen 1603

Posted on Updated on

King James VI & I Wikipedia Image One
Artist: John de Cruz
1605
Collection: Museo del Prado
Photographer Source: Galaria Online

Four hundred, nineteen years ago, today, James Charles Stuart was crowned James I, King of England and Ireland, after the death of Elizabeth I. Though England and Scotland were sovereign, individual states, he ruled them in personal union.

He was the son of Mary, Queen of Scots and the great-great grandson of Henry VII. He was thirteen months old when his mother abdicated and he succeeded to the Scottish throne, though he had regents governing due to his minority status. He took full control of the government in 1583 and succeeded Elizabeth I, whom was childless, the last monarch from the House of Tudor, in 1603.

He ruled over all three kingdoms for 22 years during the Jacobean Era until his death in 1625 (also in March, on the 27th). During his reign, the Plantation of Ulster and the Colonisation of the Americas began.

He was the longest reigning Scottish monarch, ruling nearly 58 years, surpassed only by crazy King George III (59 years), Queen Victoria (nearly 64 years) and current Queen Elizabeth II at 70 years. He was on the throne during the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 (see my post on Guy Fawkes) and, during the Elizabethan literature Golden Age, with writers such as William Shakespeare and Sir Francis Bacon. He sponsored the English translation of the Bible, the most widely read version and was a poet, himself. He preferred peace to war, steering clear of the Thirty Years’ War that involved most of Europe. There are indications that he was bi-sexual.

He died young at the age of 58 and was succeeded by his second son, King Charles I, a poor ruler that was executed in 1649.

Who Was King James VI & I

King James I

11 thoughts on “Throwback Thursday: King James & The Virgin Queen 1603

    UK #1s blog said:
    March 25, 2022 at 2:23 AM

    Also not a big fan of witches, and smoking…

      The Hinoeuma responded:
      March 25, 2022 at 3:00 AM

      I saw the witch thing. Scary.

    Badfinger (Max) said:
    March 25, 2022 at 8:57 AM

    Wait wait…I’m probably reading something wrong… he died at 58 and ruled for nearly 58 years? I know it’s by birth but who rules when he is a child or a baby?
    I’ve haven’t read about Kings and Queens much since HS

      The Hinoeuma responded:
      March 25, 2022 at 4:25 PM

      His mother abdicated the throne to him (forced to) from imprisonment, while he was an infant. The regents handle the affairs of the infant/minor children that are heir to the throne if a corresponding, ruling parent isn’t around. He had four of them. These were people that believed in the divine right of kings and were royal subjects, themselves. Caring for an infant monarch was seen as a calling from god and bloodline-maintaining duty. I’ve noticed that young monarchs, tended to by regents or those not in the direct line of rule, seemed to fair better and were less bloodthirsty.

      Assuming Wiki-Lies has the correct info, he was born June 19, 1566 & died March 27, 1625. On July 24, 1567, Mary abdicated, making him infant King at 13 months, five days old. And, that was only for Scotland. Liz I was still on the throne of England until March 24, 1603.

      His reign was 57 years & 246 days, the great length of time due to ruling Scotland. He was King of England at the age of 35, titles running concurrently.

      Had he lived to at least June 19, 1625, he would have been 59. So…he ruled for “almost” 58 years but, died at 58, a little less than three months before his next birthday.

      He was the longest reigning Scottish monarch in history and is #4 on the list of all UK monarchy.

      It’s not so much that I am fascinated with kings & queens. It’s who is connected to whom that fascinates me. I can get lost for hours reading genealogy pages…on most anyone. I dug into Ken’s family history and he, most of the time, rolled his eyes. LOL!

        Badfinger (Max) said:
        March 25, 2022 at 4:35 PM

        LOL… just because someone is born…I never believed they should be King, Queen, Janitor, or whatever….just for the sake of being born…of course I don’t understand their life…so whatever blows their hair back!
        Damn… talk about being a powerful kid…give me the ball…or off with your head! lol

          The Hinoeuma responded:
          March 25, 2022 at 5:27 PM

          The bloodline thing goes way back…thousands of years. Even Jesus the Christ (Christ being a title, only) had a “kingly” bloodline, much of that covered in the Chris Thomas material I have. Ancient familial structures were very different from today and we, as human beings, were much different 1000s of years ago…and I’m not referring to the “we evolved from apes” nonsense. “We” were more advanced, back then, than we are, now.

          Yeah…LOL…a kid with the power to have someone killed. Sadly, those “heir to the throne” children rarely had “childhoods” with friends. It was a lonely life, rife with duties & responsibilities…and constant fear of assassination. Even close family members were not to be trusted. I can’t imagine living like that.

            Badfinger (Max) said:
            March 25, 2022 at 6:53 PM

            Oh yea it goes way back…bu does that mean the bloodline could be a little inbred mixed in?

            I would LOVE to have been king…”Give me Drew Barrymore and a Snickers Bar”….yep…Max would be a happy man.

            I can see them being lonely though.

              The Hinoeuma responded:
              March 26, 2022 at 4:24 AM

              “Inbred” is not what you think it is. Our culture, driven by much religious doctrine, declares that sex with family members is a sin. The scientific community rings in with descriptions of awful genetic problems and freak babies. That is not the case, as nasty as the idea sounds. One of the things that Chris Thomas writes about is King Arthur (yes, he actually existed…it’s in the Akashic). Arthur was married to “Guinevere” or, spelled properly in Celtic “Gwenhwyfer.” His sister, “Morgan Le Faye” or, spelled in Celtic as “Morgaine”, had his only child…Mordred. He and his wife did not have any children. Here is a quote from Planet Earth: The Universe’s Experiment:
              “Fathering children with your sister sounds incestuous to us but, it was a common practice expected of kingly blood lines, where both male and female sides of the blood lines were seen as equally valid. Within Druidic traditions, such matings would take place at Beltane. These traditions were eventually made a sin by the Catholic Church when they forcibly took control of appointing kings. With this tradition made a sin, the Catholic Church could take control of and disrupt ancient blood lines who were a potential threat to the power of the church.”

              Geoffrey of Monmouth “created” the Arthurian legend in 1147 and romanticized him. Ultimately, Arthur and his son Mordred were both killed in battle, against each other…Arthur promoting Roman Christianity and Mordred defending Celtic Christianity (which, BTW, is in line with the true teachings of Jesus the Christ and his older brother, John). Geoffrey turned Arthur into a hero and Mordred into a villain.

              As weird as all of that sounds, you would have to understand the nature of the human soul. When we decide to be born, we choose our parents. It has to be a frequency match. We “borrow” some genetic material from our parents but, most of our genetic material is OURS. Babies being born with “abnormalities” from incest is a fallacy. It’s not possible. If it were, the ancient Celts would never have practiced it and they would have died out. Unfortunately, they were nearly wiped out by the invading Romans and, later further decimated by the Anglo-Saxon hoardes…all recorded in the Akashic.

              We are not taught true human history. This may be hard to believe but…there it is. I know you are making a “hurk” sound as the very thought makes you want to barf. LOL! I know that incest is a horrifying thought but, ancient peoples did it. It’s why the Catholic Church turned it into a horrible act. As a side note, there have been videos captured of Jacob Rothschild commenting on “keeping it in the family.” The ruling classes still practice “inbreeding.” Regular folks would say “that’s why they are nuts.” No. Quite the opposite. They understand ancient practices and it is a way of maintaining power. And, you would have to set aside all religion to view it a different way.

              Speaking of, all Christians still believe that Jesus died on the cross and still expect a “second coming.” No. He didn’t and no he won’t. He was crucified but, his followers took him down and he later went on to be a priest in Palestine. The Catholic Church lied about him, too.

              The soul that was Jesus the Christ did indeed return. He came back as Yasser Arafat.

                Badfinger (Max) said:
                March 26, 2022 at 6:17 PM

                Well I would not want to fool around with relatives…religion aside…it doesn’t feel right but that is just me.
                I’m not denying it….oh they did so yea…it was accepted and again…if it worked for them then fine…my old saying…whatever blows your hair back…just not for me.

                  The Hinoeuma responded:
                  March 26, 2022 at 9:02 PM

                  Yeah. LOL! I won’t be into relatives, either. 🤢🤮 I don’t belong to any bloodline family. I’m just a mutt! 🐶🐕😁

                    Badfinger (Max) said:
                    March 26, 2022 at 9:11 PM

                    LOL…yea I’m proud to be a mutt!

Leave a Reply...Share A Thought

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.