Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas pirmais hercogs

Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas pirmais hercogs


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Džordžs Viljērs, sera Džordža Viljēra otrais dēls, dzimis Brukbijā, Lesteršīrā, 1592. gada 28. augustā. Viljērs nebija dabaszinātnieks, "bet izcēlās ar tādām prasmēm kā dejošana, paukošana un jāšana, un, tā kā tās tika apvienotas ar ar izcilu izskatu un manieres šarmu viņš bija labi sagatavots dzīvei kā galminieks. " (1)

1611. gadā Viljērs satika slepenās palātas kungu seru Džonu Grehemu, kurš darbojās kā viņa mentors un veicinātājs. Viņš noorganizēja, lai Viljērs tiktu iepazīstināts ar karali Džeimsu I, kurš uzreiz iemīlēja Viljē. Visā valdīšanas laikā viņš bija saistīts ar pievilcīgiem jauniem vīriešiem, un, pēc Morisa Ešlija teiktā, viņam jaunībā bija izveidojušās homoseksuālas jūtas. (2)

Lai gan viņš apprecējās ar Dānijas Annu 1589. gadā un viņa dzemdēja Henriju (1594) un Čārlzu (1600), karalis Džeimss pavadīja maz laika kopā ar sievu un "atteicās dzīvot vienā vietā ar sievieti vairāk, nekā varēja palīdzēt." "un drīz pēc pievienošanās karaliene tika nodibināta Dānijas namā, reti pavadot viņu viņa nepārtrauktajā progresā." (3)

Kā ir norādījusi Dženija Vormalda: "Pastāv gandrīz risks aizmirst, ka pat tad, ja karalim tiek piedēvētas homoseksuālas aktivitātes, nevis homoerotiskas jūtas, Džeimss vismaz bija biseksuāls un viņam tas izdevās, jo viņa trīs priekšgājēji bija cietuši neveiksmi , nodrošinot troņmantniekus, kas pēc iepriekšējā pusgadsimta nāca kā apsveicams atvieglojums ”. (4)

Viens no viņa galminiekiem Entonijs Veldons apgalvo, ka Džeimsam ir vairākas "vīriešu mīļākās", un viņš bija vainīgs, ka publiski pauda savas jūtas: "Karalis skūpstīja viņus pēc tik skumja režīma sabiedrībā, kā arī teātrī. pasaule daudziem lika iedomāties, ka pensionēšanās mājā tiek darītas lietas, kas manas izpausmes pārsniedz ne mazāk kā manu pieredzi. " (5)

Džeimss uzskatīja Viljēru par ārkārtīgi pievilcīgu un tika uzskatīts par "skaistu kā medību leopards". (6) Bīskaps Godfrijs Gudmens komentēja, ka Viljērs ir "visskaistākās miesas būves vīrietis visā Anglijā; viņa ekstremitātes ir tik labi saspiestas, un viņa saruna ir tik patīkama un tik salda." (7)

Laikā, kad viņš tikās ar Viljēru, karalis bija romantiski saistīts ar Robertu Karru. Viņš kļuva par karaļa mīļāko, kad viņam bija 20 gadu, un nākamajā gadā viņš kļuva par guļamistabas līgavaini. Tika ziņots, ka karalis "publiski saspiedīs Vara vaigu, izlīdzinās drēbes un dievinās, pat sarunājoties ar citiem". Nākamo astoņu gadu laikā Kars pastāvīgi uzkrāja materiālo atlīdzību par karalisko aizraušanos un saņēma lielus īpašumus visā Anglijā. (8)

1613. gadā Kars sāka plānot precēties ar Francesu Hovardu, admirāļa Tomasa Hovarda meitu, Norfolkas 4. hercoga Tomasa Hovarda dēlu. Hovardu ģimenei bija arvien lielāka ietekme uz karali Džeimsu. Tas ietvēra Henriju Hovardu, Northemptonas 1. grāfu, Tomasu Hovardu, Arundela grāfu un Čārlzu Hovardu, Efinghemas lordu. Viņi visi bija līdzjūtīgi Romas katoļu baznīcai un vēlējās aliansi ar Spānijas karali Filipu III. Saskaņā ar John Philipps Kenyon, autors Stjuarts (1958): "Viņi (Hovards) mudināja Džeimsu apprecēt savu dēlu ar Spānijas Filipa III meitu un izmantot viņas milzīgo pūru, lai nomaksātu parādus, ar galīgo mērķi - samierināt angļu baznīcu ar Romu." (9)

Sers Tomass Oberberijs bija rūgti iebildis pret laulībām, jo ​​bija noraizējies par Hovardu ģimenes pieaugošo ietekmi. Viņš paziņoja savas jūtas Džeimsam. Viņš noraidīja viņa sūdzības un piedāvāja viņam vēstnieka amatu, kas nozīmētu, ka viņš dzīvo ārzemēs. Kad viņš atteicās ieņemt šo amatu, 1613. gada 21. aprīlī viņš tika arestēts un nogādāts Londonas tornī. Oberbērijs Karram rakstītajā vēstulē draudēja, ka viņš atklās informāciju par Frānsisa Hovarda iepriekšējo dzīvi. Oberberijs nomira 1613. gada 15. septembrī. Desmit dienas vēlāk Kerrs apprecējās ar Hovardu. (10)

1614. gadā iecēla Karru par lordu Čemberlenu un piešķīra viņam Somersetas grāfa titulu. Tomēr viņš arī parādīja savu mīlestību pret Viljēru, dodot viņam karaliskā kausa nesēja darbu, un 1615. gadā tika iecelts bruņiniekā un kļuva par guļamistabas kungu. Viņam tika piešķirta arī ikgadējā pensija 1000 sterliņu mārciņu apmērā. Kars sūdzējās par savu jauno sāncensi. Džeimss atbildēja, uzrakstot vēstuli, kurā bija skaidri norādīts, ka viņš nevēlas atteikties no mīlestības pret Viljē. Viņš pārmeta Kārim viņa "dīvaino nemiera, aizraušanās, niknuma un nekaunīgā lepnuma straumi" un "atkāpšanos no gulēšanas manā istabā, neskatoties uz to, ka es daudzus simtus reižu nopietni aicināju jūs pretēji". (11)

1615. gada augustā Viljērs un Džeimss ieņēma vienu gultu Farnhamas pilī, kur karalis progresēja. Rodžers Lokjērs apgalvo, ka tas pats par sevi nepierāda, ka abiem vīriešiem bija homoseksuālas attiecības: "Kopīga gultas kopšana nebija nekas neparasts septiņpadsmitā gadsimta sākumā, un tas nebūt nenozīmēja fizisku tuvību. Tomēr bija visas pazīmes, ka attiecības starp karalis un Viljērs bija iegājuši jaunā fāzē un Somersetas labvēlības dienas bija skaitītas. " (12)

Autors Stjuarts (1958) norādīja: "Divdesmit divu gadu vecumā Džordžam Viljē bija tāda diezgan nobriedusi vīrišķīga pievilcība, kas trīc uz sievišķības robežas: garš un skaisti proporcionāls, viņam bija sirds formas seja, kas ierāmēta tumšos kastaņu matos un īsa bārda, izsmalcināti izliekta mute un tumši zilas acis augstā dzimuma pārstāvjiem ... Viņa inteliģence, lai gan tā pastāvēja zemā līmenī, neapšaubāmi pastāvēja ... Bekingema puiciskā koķetība ļāva viņam nesodīti šķērsot Džeimsu. " (13)

Viljērs guva arī karaļa lordkanclera sera Frensisa Bekona atbalstu. Viņš arī baidījās no Hovardu ģimenes pieaugošās ietekmes un mudināja Džeimsu pasūtīt izmeklēšanu par Tomasa Overberija nāvi. Galu galā Roberts Karrs un viņa sieva Fransisa Karra stājās tiesas priekšā, lai stātos pretī apsūdzībai slepkavībā. Frensisa pilnībā atzinās, bet Roberts apgalvoja, ka viņam nav nekāda sakara ar Overberija nāvi. Tiesa viņam neticēja un pārim tika piespriests nāvessods. Džeimss atteicās atļaut nāvessodu savam mīļotajam, un viņi abi tika ieslodzīti Londonas tornī. (14)

Viljērs bija labā stāvoklī, lai gūtu labumu no Roberta Karra atcelšanas no varas. 1616. gada janvārī Džeimss padarīja viņu par zirga meistaru, un 27. augustā viņš izveidoja viņu par vikontu Viljē un iedeva viņam kronu zemes ar vērtību 30 000 sterliņu mārciņu. Viņš kļuva arī par galveno ierēdni lūgumu reģistrēšanai karaļa solā, kura vērtība ir aptuveni 4000 sterliņu mārciņu gadā. 1617. gada 6. janvārī viņš tika paaugstināts Bekingemas apgabalā, un nākamajā mēnesī viņš kļuva par Privātās padomes locekli. Karalis neslēpa savas jūtas pret savu mīļāko. (15)

1617. gada septembrī karalis aizstāvēja savu draudzību ar Bekingemu: "Es neesmu nedz Dievs, nedz eņģelis, bet gan cilvēks kā jebkurš cits. Tāpēc es rīkojos kā cilvēks un atzīstu, ka mīlu tos, kas man ir dārgāki par citiem vīriešiem. esmu pārliecināts, ka es mīlu Bekingemas grāfu vairāk nekā jebkurš cits un vairāk nekā jūs, kas šeit esat sapulcējušies. Es vēlos runāt savā vārdā, nevis uzskatīt to par trūkumu, jo Jēzus Kristus darīja to pašu, un tāpēc mani nevar vainot. Kristum bija savs Jānis, bet man - Džordžs. " (16)

Džeimss bija dziļi iemīlējies Bekingemā, kurš viņu nosauca par Stīniju (atsauce uz Svēto Stefanu, kuru Bībelē raksturo kā “eņģeļa seju”). Pēc Džona Filipa Kenjona teiktā, viņš viņu arī nosaucis par savu “mīļoto”, savu “mīļo bērnu un sievu”. Reiz, kad Bekingema bija īsās brīvdienās, Džeimss uzrakstīja viņam lūgumu atgriezties: "Mans vienīgais mīļais un dārgais bērns. Es lūdzu tevi steigties mājās pie tēta, saulrietā dodoties vistālāk ... un tāpēc Kungs Man šovakar ir ērti un laimīgi ar tevi. " (17)

Džeimss bija līdzjūtīgs Romas katoļu baznīcai un nonāca pie secinājuma, ka viņa dēlam Čārlzam vajadzētu apprecēties ar Spānijas karaļa Filipa III jaunāko meitu Mariju Annu. Bekingema atbalstīja šo politiku, bet Anglijas parlaments iebilda pret to, un 1621. gadā tā aicināja ieviest atjaunošanas likumus, jūras kampaņu pret Spāniju un protestantu laulību ar Velsas princi. (18)

Lords kanclers Frānsiss Bēkons vadīja kampaņu pret ierosināto laulību un kopā ar citiem deputātiem ierosināja Čārlzam precēties ar protestantu princesi. Džeimss uzstāja, ka Pārstāvju palāta rūpējas tikai par iekšlietām un nedrīkst iesaistīties lēmumu pieņemšanā par ārpolitiku. (19)

Karaļa atbalstītāji atbildēja, apsūdzot Bekonu kukuļdošanā un korupcijā, un viņš tika apsūdzēts Lordu palātā. Kopš piecpadsmitā gadsimta Parlamentā nebija gāzts lielisks vainaga virsnieks. (20) Bekonam tika uzlikts naudas sods 40 000 sterliņu mārciņu apmērā un "ieslodzījums pēc karaļa prieka". Viņam tika liegts arī jebkurš štata birojs vai darbs, un viņam bija aizliegts sēdēt parlamentā vai ierasties tiesas robežās (12 jūdzes). Naudas sods nekad netika iekasēts, un viņa ieslodzījums Londonas tornī ilga tikai trīs dienas. (21)

Džeimss atteicās pieņemt sakāvi, un viņš noorganizēja Čārlza apmācību spāņu valodā un jaunākos kontinentālās dejas soļus. 1623. gada februārī Čārlzs kopā ar Bekingemas hercogu inkognito devās uz Madridi, lai tiktos ar Spānijas karaliskās ģimenes locekļiem. Viņš tika aprakstīts kā "izaudzis par smalku kungu", taču tika novērots arī tas, ka viņš izskatījās neizšķirts un bija tikai piecas pēdas četras collas garš. (22) Šajā periodā Čārlzu spēcīgi ietekmēja Bekingemas politiskās idejas. (23)

Džons Morrils ir norādījis: "Čārlza lēmums uzsākt personīgu iepazīšanos kā veids, kā izkļūt no diplomātiskā strupceļa, liecināja par viņa pieaugošo pašapziņu. Tagad viņš parasti darbojās kā politiskais aģents, tiekoties ar padomniekiem, ārvalstu vēstniekiem , un Bekingemas hercogs, dažreiz pēc tēva norādījumiem, dažreiz patstāvīgi. Lēmums doties uz Spāniju un vest klātienes sarunas, lai noslēgtu laulību, bija vēl viens solis viņa nobriešanā. " (24)

Spānijas sarunu dalībnieki kā mača nosacījumu pieprasīja Čārlzam pāriet uz Romas katoļticību. Viņi arī uzstāja uz Anglijas katoļu toleranci un sodu likumu atcelšanu. Pēc laulībām Marijai Annai bija jāpaliek Spānijā, līdz Anglija izpildīs visus līguma nosacījumus. Čārlzs zināja, ka Parlaments nekad nepieņems šo darījumu, un viņš atgriezās Anglijā bez līgavas. (25)

Tagad tika nolemts mainīt ārpolitiku, un Džeimss tagad atklāja sarunas par iespēju izveidot aliansi ar franču Luiju XIII, kas ietvēra Čārlza laulību ar ķēniņa māsu Henrietu Mariju. Tas bija bezprecedenta gadījums, kad katoļu princese bija precējusies ar protestantu. Pāvests Urbāns VIII deva savu atļauju tikai tad, kad viņš bija pārliecināts, ka līgumā ir iekļautas "saistības par karalienes, viņas bērnu un viņas mājsaimniecības reliģiskajām tiesībām; savukārt atsevišķā slepenā dokumentā Čārlzs apsolīja apturēt sodu likumu darbību pret katoļiem". (26)

1624. gada februārī Bekingemas hercogam izdevās pārliecināt lielāko daļu Parlamenta deputātu uz jauno anti-spāņu politiku un vienoties par līgumu ar Franciju. Tomēr Parlamentam netika paskaidrots, ka ierosinātā laulība radīs lielāku toleranci pret Romas katoļiem. (27)

Šo sarunu rezultātā Parlaments zaudēja uzticību karalim Džeimsam. Viņi viņam vairs neuzticējās, un viņš bija spiests vairākkārt piekāpties. Tas ietvēra Monopola likumu, kas aizliedza karaliskās monopolu piešķiršanas privātpersonām. Džeimss arī piekrita cieši sadarboties ar Parlamentu, lai risinātu ekonomisko krīzi, ko valsts tobrīd piedzīvoja. (28)

Džeimss I nomira 1625. gada 27. martā. Bekingems tagad kļuva par jaunā karaļa vissvarīgāko padomnieku. 1. maijā Čārlzs apprecējās ar piecpadsmit gadus veco Henrietu Mariju pie Dievmātes baznīcas durvīm. Čārlzs viņu satika Doverā 13. jūnijā, un viņu raksturoja kā mazu kaulu un sīku un "viņas vecumam nedaudz mazu". (29) Cits avots teica, ka viņa ir "neskaidra pusaudze, milzīgas acis, kaulainas plaukstas, izvirzīti zobi un minimāla figūra". (30) Karolīna M. Hībarda sniedz pozitīvāku tēlu, apgalvojot, ka viņai bija "brūni mati un melnas acis un salduma un asprātības kombinācija, ko atzīmēja gandrīz katrs novērotājs". (31)

Daudzi Apakšpalātas locekļi bija pret karaļa laulībām ar Romas katoļiem, baidoties, ka tas graus Anglijas reformētās baznīcas oficiālo izveidi. Puritāņi bija īpaši nelaimīgi, kad izdzirdēja, ka karalis ir apsolījis, ka Henrietai Marijai būs atļauts brīvi praktizēt savu reliģiju un viņa būs atbildīga par savu bērnu audzināšanu, līdz viņi sasniegs 13 gadu vecumu. 1626. gada februārī Vestminsteras abatijā viņa sieva nebija viņa pusē, jo viņa atteicās piedalīties protestantu reliģiskajā ceremonijā. (32)

Šajā laikā karalis Luijs XIII bija iesaistīts pilsoņu karā pret protestantiem (hugenotiem) Francijā. Parlaments vēlējās palīdzēt hugenotiem, bet Čārlzs atteicās, jo nevēlējās apbēdināt savu sievu vai svaini. Galu galā tika panākta vienošanās nosūtīt uz Franciju astoņu kuģu floti. Tomēr pēdējā brīdī Čārlzs nosūtīja pavēles, lai vīriem būtu jācīnās par Luiju XIII, nevis pret. Kapteiņi un ekipāžas atteicās pieņemt šos rīkojumus un cīnījās pret frančiem. (33)

Čārlzs bija gatavs pasludināt karu Spānijai. Tā vietā, lai tieši iesaistītos Eiropas sauszemes karā, Anglijas parlaments deva priekšroku salīdzinoši lētam jūras uzbrukumam spāņu kolonijām Jaunajā pasaulē, cerot uz Spānijas dārgumu flotu sagūstīšanu, un piešķīra tikai 140 000 sterliņu mārciņu subsīdiju, kas bija nepietiekama summa. par Čārlza kara plāniem. (34)

Čārlzs bija vīlies par šo lēmumu, un tāpēc viņš sasauca citu parlamentu. Šoreiz Bekingemas hercogs teica garu runu, kur "viņš aizstāvēja savu politiku, apliecināja viņiem savu apņemšanos karot, ieskaitot jūras uzbrukumu Spānijai, un sniedza informāciju par karaļa finansiālajām saistībām". Tomēr viņi norādīja, ka ekonomiskās lejupslīdes laikā valsts nevar atļauties vairāk nodokļu. Čārlzs atbildēja, atlaižot parlamentu. (35)

1627. gada vasarā Bekingems mēģināja palīdzēt saviem jaunajiem sabiedrotajiem hugenotiem, kas bija ielenkti Larošelā Francijā. 12. jūlijā Sablanceau ieradās angļu spēki ar 100 kuģiem un 6000 karavīriem. Francijas 1200 kājnieku un 200 jātnieku spēki salas gubernatora marķīza de Toiras vadībā pretojās desantam no kāpu aizmugures, bet angļu pludmales galva tika saglabāta. Aplenkums turpinājās līdz oktobrim, kura laikā viņš zaudēja vairāk nekā 4000 no 7000 vīru lieliem spēkiem. (36)

Bekingemas galvenais kritiķis apakšpalātā sers Džons Eliots ierosināja impīčmenta procedūru pret karaļa galveno padomnieku. 1626. gada maijā Čārlzs, izrādot atbalstu, izvirzīja Bekingemu par Kembridžas universitātes kancleri un lika Eliotu arestēt pie nama durvīm. Viņa ieslodzījums izraisīja lielu protestu, un karalis bija spiests pavēlēt atbrīvot Eliotu. Tomēr Čārlzs atteicās atlaist Bekingemu un tā vietā atlaida parlamentu. (37)

Lai gan karalis turpināja aizsargāt Bekingemu, sabiedrība viņu ienīda, un 1628. gada 23. augustā viņš tika sadurts līdz nāvei Greyhound krogā Portsmutā. Slepkava bija Džons Feltons, armijas virsnieks, kurš bija ievainots iepriekšējā militārajā piedzīvojumā un uzskatīja, ka Bekingems viņu nodeva paaugstināšanai amatā. Tomēr viņš skaidri norādīja, ka viņa rīcības pamatā ir viņa ticība apakšpalātai un ka, "nogalinot hercogu, viņam jādara liels kalpojums savai valstij". (38)

Divdesmit divu gadu vecumā Džordžam Villjēram bija diezgan nobriedusi vīrišķīga pievilcība, kas trīc uz sievišķības robežas: garš un skaisti proporcionāls, viņam bija sirds formas seja, kas ierāmēta tumšos kastaņu matos un īsā bārdā, izsmalcināti- izliekta mute un tumši zilas acis augsti dzimumiem ...

Viņa inteliģence, lai gan tā pastāvēja zemā līmenī, neapšaubāmi pastāvēja ... Bekingema puiciskā koķetība ļāva viņam nesodīti šķērsot Džeimsu, parādoties drīzāk ar pastiprinātu ietekmi; viņa vēstules burbuļo ar bezjēdzīgu šarmu un mīļotāju runām par mazuļiem, taču pat viņa nemainīgajā maldā ir jūtama pieklājība.

Es, Džeimss, neesmu ne Dievs, ne eņģelis, bet gan cilvēks kā jebkurš cits. Kristum bija savs Jānis, bet man - Džordžs.

Militārā taktika pilsoņu karā (atbildes komentārs)

Sievietes pilsoņu karā (atbildes komentārs)

Olivera Kromvela portreti (atbildes komentārs)

(1) Rodžers Lokjērs, Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas 1. hercogs: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(2) Moriss Ešlijs, Anglijas karaļu un karalienes dzīve (1975) 182. lpp

(3) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 41. lpp

(4) Dženija Vormalda, Karalis Džeimss I: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(5) Entonijs Veldons, Karaļa Džeimsa I galms un raksturs (1650)

(6) Diāna Purkisa, Anglijas pilsoņu karš: tautas vēsture (2007) 15. lpp

(7) Pauline Gregg, Karalis Čārlzs (1984) 49. lpp

(8) Alastair Bellany, Roberts Karrs, Somersetas grāfs: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(9) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 47. lpp

(10) Džons Konsidins, Thomas Overbury: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(11) Pīters Akroids, Pilsoņu karš (2014) 45. lpp

(12) Rodžers Lokjērs, Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas 1. hercogs: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(13) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 50. lpp

(14) Pīters Akroids, Pilsoņu karš (2014) 46. lpp

(15) Rodžers Lokjērs, Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas 1. hercogs: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(16) Karalis Džeimss I, runa Privātās padomes sanāksmē (1617. gada septembris)

(17) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 50. lpp

(18) Kristofers Hibberts, Čārlzs I. (1968) 49.-50

(19) Ričards Kusts, Čārlzs I: politiskā dzīve (2005) 8. lpp

(20) Rodžers Lokjērs, Tjūdors un Stjuarts Lielbritānija (1985) 225. lpp

(21) Markku Peltonens, Frānsiss Bēkons: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(22) Moriss Ešlijs, Anglijas karaļu un karalienes dzīve (1975) 187. lpp

(23) Ričards Olārs, Klarendons un viņa draugi (1988), 24. lpp

(24) Džons Morils, Karalis Čārlzs I: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(25) Pauline Gregg, Karalis Kārlis I (1981) 85.-87. lpp

(26) Karolīna M. Hībarde, Henrieta Marija: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(27) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 60. lpp

(28) Berijs Kovards, Stjuarta laikmets: Anglija 1603-1714 (1980) 158. lpp

(29) Džons Morils, Karalis Čārlzs I: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(30) Džons Filips Kenijs, Stjuarts (1958) 63. lpp

(31) Karolīna M. Hībarde, Henrieta Marija: Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca (2004-2014)

(32) Čārlzs Karltons, Čārlzs I: Personīgais monarhs (1995) 76. lpp

(33) Džeralds Hovs, Stjuarts un Kromvela ārpolitika (1974) 35. lpp

(34) Pauline Gregg, Karalis Kārlis I (1981) 129. lpp

(35) Rodžers Lokjērs, Tjūdors un Stjuarts Lielbritānija (1985) 233. lpp

(36) Marks Čārlzs Fišels, Karš un valdība Lielbritānijā, 1598-1650 (1991) 123.-125

(37) Čārlzs Karltons, Čārlzs I: Personīgais monarhs (1995) 149.-151.lpp

(38) Rodžers Lokjērs, Tjūdors un Stjuarts Lielbritānija (1985) 238. lpp


Šī gada janvāra izdevums The Lord of House, 1604-29, ir kulminācija desmit gadus ilgajai rakstīšanai un pētniecībai, ko veica speciāla četru zinātnieku komanda, kuru vadīja doktors Endrjū Strauss. Šis pēdējais papildinājums Parlamenta vēstures sērijai, kas sastāv no diviem biogrāfiju sējumiem, kuru garums pārsniedz 1600 miljonus vārdu, un atsevišķu ievada apsekojumu, papildina un uzlabo sešu sējumu kopumu, kas tika publicēts 2010. gadā publicētajā Stjuarta apakšpalātā un tās locekļos. .

Jaunāko Parlamenta vēstures sēžu centrā ir 277 vienaudžu biogrāfijas, kuriem bija tiesības sēdēt Lordu palātā laikā no 1604. līdz 1629. gadam. 1640. gadā sapulcinātais Parlaments ir parādīts divos pielikumos.)

Vislielākā vieta dabiski tiek veltīta tā laika vadošajiem politiskajiem darbiniekiem, tostarp Robertam Sesilim, Solsberijas 1. grāfam, kurš veltīgi centās atrisināt krona finansiālās problēmas ar parlamenta Bekingemas pirmā hercoga Džordža Viljēra palīdzību. parvenu kura dominēšana Anglijas politikā kā divu secīgu ķēniņu iecienītākā un galvenā ministre satracināja „senās muižniecības” pārstāvjus un izraisīja viņa impīčmentu 1626. gadā Kenterberijas arhibīskaps Džordžs Abbots, kurš palīdzēja Bekingemam pie varas un nāca par to nožēlot un Tomass Hovards, Arundelas 21. grāfs, "senās muižniecības ’" vadošais pārstāvis, kurš sākotnēji sevi uzskatīja par Bekingemas galvenajiem sabiedrotajiem. Šajos individuālajos pētījumos tiks atklāts daudz jauna. Piemēram, garajā ierakstā par princi Čārlzu - topošo Kārli I -, kurš 1621. un 1624. gadā valdīja Velsas prinča lordos, tiek apgalvots, ka slavenais Čārlza stostīšanās cēlonis bija nevis psiholoģiska trauma, bet palielināta mēle. stāvoklis, kas pazīstams kā makroglossija, kas apgrūtināja publisku runu.

Biogrāfijas apjomus veido ne tikai tādi augsti cilvēki kā Čārlzs un Bekingems, Solsberi un Arundels, bet arī daudzi līdzcilvēki, kuri nabadzības vai nelielas politiskas nozīmes dēļ ir izvairījušies no iekļaušanas Oksfordas nacionālās biogrāfijas vārdnīca: vīrieši, piemēram, Hempšīras vienaudzis, Viljams, trešais lords Sandijs un anglo-īru muižnieks, Džordžs Tušets, 11. lords Audlijs un 1. Kārlhaivenas grāfs.

Tomēr pret šiem mazākajiem mazuļiem izturas tikpat pilnībā kā pret izcilākajiem brāļiem. Paralēli katra cilvēka karjerai Lordu palātā (protams, pieņemot, ka viņš sēdēja), lasītāji atradīs informāciju par viņa politisko karjeru, finanšu lietām, reliģisko pārliecību, kultūras interesēm, vispārējo raksturu un seksuālo dzīvi. paradumi. Patiešām, šie sējumi ir bagātīgi iekrāsoti to detaļās. Mēs, piemēram, uzzinām, ka Bekingems 1623. gadā atgriezās no Spānijas ar gonoreju un ka viņa jaunākais brālis Kristofers Viljērs, Anglesijas pirmais grāfs, bija smieklīgs dzērājs, ka Baziliks Feildings, lords Newnham Paddokses, jaunībā drīzāk bija anti-kalvinists, nevis pārliecinātais kalvinists mēs visi bijām domājuši un ka Henrijs Klintons, Linkolnas 2. grāfs, bija tik vardarbīgs, ka Džeimss I uzskatīja, ka viņu pārvalda pazemes ietekme. Mēs arī atklājam, ka Viljams Paulets, Vinčesteras ceturtā marķīze, bija pazīstams tik vājš, ka kāzu naktī viņš acīmredzot nezināja, ar kuru galu sākt, ka Toms, ceturtais lords Kromvels, bija daļējs Dublinas veikalu meitenēm un ka Henrijs, septītais Lordu Bērkliju tik ļoti dominēja viņa sieva, ka viņa paša stjuarts viņam piešķīra segvārdu “Henrijs nekaitīgais”. Ne parlamentārie vēsturnieki par šiem sējumiem atradīs tikpat lielu interesi kā parlamentārieši.

Divu biogrāfiju sējumus papildina 400 lappušu monogrāfija par pašu Lordu namu. Tas ir sadalīts sešās lielās nodaļās, un tas lordus aplūko caur plašāku objektīvu nekā Elizabete Lasīja Fostere savā 1983. gada pētījumā par augšpalātu. Kamēr Fosters izmantoja tikai un vienīgi parlamentāros avotus, šis jaunais pētījums neattiecas uz Parlamentu, lai pārbaudītu notikumus Lordos. Tiek atklāti vairāki galvenie atklājumi. Starp svarīgākajiem ir tas, ka kungi 1620. gados piedzīvoja kaut ko renesansi. Pirms šī datuma Parlamentu aizvien vairāk aptumšoja Commons, kura locekļi vieni paši kontrolēja parlamenta maku.

Tomēr, sākot ar 1621. gadu, kungiem tika iedvesta jauna dzīvība. Daļēji tas bija saistīts ar pēkšņi atjaunoto Lordu sen aizmirsto tiesu varu, jo īpaši pilnvarām veikt impīčmenta tiesas procesus, kas nostādīja namu centrālajā vietā un izraisīja Commons skaudību. Tomēr tas bija attiecināms arī uz muižnieku bailēm, ka viņu privilēģijas tiek grautas. Arundela grāfa vadībā kungi izveidoja savu pirmo privilēģiju komiteju, tādējādi pārvēršoties par muižnieku arodbiedrību. Vēl viens faktors kungu likteņu atdzimšanai bija frakcionālisma pieaugums, kas izplatījās parlamentā. Pirms 1620. gadiem kungi savu galveno lomu uzskatīja par karaļa interešu aizstāvību. Bekingemas pieaugums un aristokrātisko titulu pārdošana to visu mainīja. Tas noveda pie tā, ka Lordos parādījās “opozīcijas” politika. Tautas prātā daudzi augšpalātas locekļi, piemēram, Eseksas un Vorikas grāfi, kā arī vikonts Sē un Selē, tika uzskatīti nevis par vainaga pakļautiem, bet gan par kopējās labklājības čempioniem. Līdz 1620. gadu beigām neviens nevarēja paredzēt, ka pēc divdesmit gadiem augšpalāta, tāpat kā monarhija, tiks likvidēta.

Lordu palātu 1604-29 tagad var iegādāties, izmantojot Cambridge University Press. Noklikšķiniet šeit, lai iegūtu vairāk informācijas.


Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas pirmais hercogs

1614. gadā Viljērs, kurš toreiz tika uzskatīts par “skaistākā auguma vīrieti Anglijā” [1], tika iepazīstināts ar karali Džeimsu, kurš drīz vien izjuta spēcīgu pieķeršanos viņam, nosaucot viņu par “jauko bērnu un sievu”. Sākotnēji viņu atbalstīja tie, kas iebilda pret karaļa pašreizējo favorītu Robertu Karru Ērlu no Somersetas. Dažu nākamo gadu laikā viņš ātri kļuva par bruņinieku, baronu, vikontu, grāfu, marķīzi un visbeidzot hercogu.

Atjaunojot Apethorpe Hall, Northamptonshire, 2004. – 2008. Gadā atklājās iepriekš nezināms fragments, kas sasaista Viljēra guļamistabu ar Džeimsa guļamistabu. [2]

Villiers ieņēma vadošo lomu daudzos Džeimsa valdīšanas politiskajos un militārajos notikumos, no kuriem daudzi izrādījās ļoti slikti, un viņš kļuva ļoti nepopulārs. Saskaņā ar dažiem stāstiem viņš kļuva par Austrijas Annas, Francijas karalienes (kuras vīrs Luijs XIII esot bijis gejs) mīļāko.

Pēc Džeimsa nāves 1625. gadā Viljērs palika par labu Džeimsa dēlam Čārlzam I, bet viņš tika nogalināts Portsmutā 1628. gadā.


Šodiena ir pirmā no emuāru trijotnes svinībām LGBT+ vēstures mēnesis. Paul M. Hunneyball, Asociētais redaktors Lordu palāta 1604.-1629 projekts sākas ar sava bloga turpinājumu no pēdējās LGBTHM, ‘James I un viņa mīļākie: sekss un vara Jēkaba ​​galmā ’. Šajā jaunajā emuārā viņš pēta Bekingemas hercoga pozīcijas attīstību tiesā 1610. un 1620. gados un viņa attiecību ar Džeimsu I … sarežģītību

Bekingemas pirmais hercogs Džordžs Viljerss šodien, iespējams, ir vislabāk pazīstams ar desmitgades ilgu saziņu ar Džeimsu I. Tomēr vēsturiskā ziņā viņš ir tikpat ievērojams ar to, ka viņš ir divu galīgo monarhu-Džeimsa un viņa dēla Čārlza I-galvenais galma favorīts, nepārspējams varoņdarbs Eiropā šajā laikmetā. Ja ņem vērā viņa un abu karaļu attiecību ļoti atšķirīgo raksturu, Bekingemas sasniegums šķiet vēl ievērojamāks. Sākotnēji viņš izcēlās tāpēc, ka homoseksuālis Džeimss viņu uzskatīja par fiziski un emocionāli pievilcīgu, un tas joprojām bija svarīgs apsvērums, kas uzturēja viņu lietu. Čārlzs, atšķirībā no tēva, piekrita sava laika ierastajiem homofobiskajiem aizspriedumiem, nepiekrita Džeimsa geju dullībām un sākumā ļoti izteicās pret Bekingemu. Hercogs galu galā ar viņu ieņēma uzticības personas, neaizstājama padomnieka un galvenā ministra lomu. Emocionāli atturīgais Čārlzs radīja dziļu un nesatricināmu pieķeršanos hercogam, taču viņu draudzība bija stingri platoniska. Fakts, ka Bekingems spēja tik veiksmīgi īstenot šo pāreju, rada dažus interesantus jautājumus par viņa un Džeimsa attiecību patieso būtību.

Jēkaba ​​galmā konkurējošās frakcijas atklāti meklēja ietekmi ar karali, reklamējot izskatīgus jaunekļus, kuri, viņuprāt, iegūs viņa labvēlību. Pats Bekingems savu galma karjeru sāka kā Kenterberijas arhibīskapa Džordža Abbota un Pembrokas trešā grāfa Viljama Herberta klients, kurš izmantoja savas burvības, lai aizstātu iepriekšējo karalisko favorītu Robertu Karru, Somersetas grāfu. Jaunais Viljērs, kurš, kā ziņots, bija ieradies tiesā izdevīgas laulības meklējumos, ar apņēmību ķērās pie savas jaunās lomas. Pēc Godfreja Gudmena, vēlākā Glosteras bīskapa teiktā, “viņš bija skaistākais auguma vīrs Anglijā, un viņa ekstremitātes bija tik labi saspiestas, un saruna bija tik patīkama un tik salda.” (G. Gudmens, karaļa Džeimsa Pirmā galms, t.i. 225-6). Cits novērotājs, sers Simonds D’Ewes, uzskatīja, ka viņš ir “pilns ar gardumu un glītām iezīmēm, jā, viņa rokas un seja man šķita īpaši sievišķīgas un zinātkāras” (J.O. Halliwell (red.), Sēra Simonda D’Ewes autobiogrāfija un sarakste, t.i. 166-7).


  • Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas 1. hercogs, c. 1616 (V. Larkins?)

  • Džordžs Viljērs, Bekingemas pirmais hercogs, 1625. gads (Pīters Pols Rubenss)

Mēs varam izjust šīs īpašības no portreta, kas uzgleznots, lai atzīmētu viņa radīšanu kā prievītes bruņinieks 1616. gadā, kurā Bekingema ir tīri noskūta un ar labi redzamām garajām, elegantajām kājām. Tomēr pēc deviņiem gadiem pēc Čārlza pievienošanās karalim hercogs vēlējās popularizēt diezgan atšķirīgu tēlu, kā redzams šajā Rubensa jātnieku portretā. Šeit bārdainais Bekingems apzināti projicē mačisma un spēka gaisotni, un tā viņš izvēlējās sevi prezentēt visas savas karjeras laikā.

Ko šī pārvērtība varētu mums pastāstīt par viņa attiecībām ar Džeimsu? Septiņus vai astoņus gadus Bekingemai bija piemērots izkopt efektīvāku personību. Karalis palika viņā pilnīgi iemīlējies un patiešām kļuva emocionāli atkarīgs no viņa. Spriežot pēc viņu izdzīvojušās sarakstes, Bekingems izjuta ievērojamu mīlestību pret savu karalisko mīļāko. Bet bija viena fundamentāla problēma. Tā nebija moderna stila geju partnerattiecības. Džeimss savā ziņā bija galvenais 17. gadsimta cukura tētis, apbēdinot savu mīļāko ar bagātību, tituliem un ietekmi. Bekingems, kurš nāca no nelieliem džentlmeņu krājumiem, pacēlās uz sabiedrības virsotni, un šajā laikā hercogistes parasti bija rezervētas karaliskās ģimenes locekļiem. Viņš panāca zināmu neformālu tuvību ar karali, kas tika liegta citiem galminiekiem. Tomēr viņam nekad nebija ļauts aizmirst, ka Džeimss kontrolēja viņu attiecības. Ķēniņam patika lielīties ar Bekingemu kā savu izcilāko radījumu, kas netieši nozīmēja, ka viņš varētu viņu atkal atdarināt. 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.

Wikipedia

Ближайшие родственники

About George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham

George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (28 August 1592 – 23 August 1628) (surname pronounced /ˈvɪlɚz/ ("villers"))[1] was the favourite, claimed by some to be the lover, of King James I of England[2] 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.[3]

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.[4] 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.


Skatīties video: Auksiniai svogūnai 2019 - A. Maldeikienės ir G. Nausėdos daina


Komentāri:

  1. Wregan

    It is simply matchless phrase ;)

  2. Akinorr

    Saskaņā ar sapņa pasaku tas ienāks jūsu mājā

  3. Minris

    I think you are making a mistake. Let's discuss this. Email me at PM, we will talk.

  4. Orthros

    Jūs maldāties. Raksti man PM, sarunāsim.

  5. Femi

    Jums nav taisnība. Apspriedīsim. Raksti man uz PM, sarunāsim.

  6. Keannen

    This answer is incomparable



Uzrakstiet ziņojumu