Anna's influence on the royal court was quite significant: thanks to her, courtly orders were established at the Scottish (and from 1603 English) court, balls began to be organized frequently, theatrical performances, poets and musicians were encouraged, the court acquired splendor and splendor. Anne's court painter was Isaac Oliver, who left numerous portraits of his patroness. This displeased the Presbyterian clergy, who repeatedly criticized the queen for neglecting prayers and the word of God. The negative attitude intensified even more after Anna's conversion to Catholicism. Many talented administrators emerged from the Queen's retinue, who then successfully worked in the highest government bodies of England and Scotland.

Anne's residence was the Queen's House, built for her by Inigo Jones in Greenwich, which has survived. She died at the age of 44, in 1619, at Hampton Court Palace and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

Marriage and children

Write a review about the article "Anna of Denmark"

Excerpt characterizing Anna of Denmark

Introduction

The purpose of the work is to compare the nature of the king’s relations with these groups. The analysis of relations with favorites in the work is limited to the figure of the Duke of Buckingham, as the most prominent representative of this circle. Also, when analyzing the relationship between Jacob and his family, the task is to determine the degree of influence of the king on the formation of their immediate circle.

The question of Jacob’s relationship with his favorites lies on at least three levels: what he himself wrote about them, what his contemporaries wrote about it, and how later scientists analyzed it. This topic cannot be called irrelevant: for four centuries now it has been under the watchful eye of researchers of the history of England under the first Stuarts. The dominant point in the view of the sexual preferences of Elizabeth's successor is their rather harsh criticism, the main reason for which is their homosexual nature. The homosexuality of the first Stuart monarch, now recognized by almost everyone, was initially a serious moral obstacle to a deep analysis of his relationships with his favorites.

There are three main approaches to studying this issue. The first approach is based on a moral principle that finds similar relationships repulsive and giving them a very negative assessment. The second group of researchers tries to avoid this topic whenever possible. The third approach is an attempt to give all hints about these relationships a fairly rational explanation that reduces the personal factor as such to nothing. A number of researchers also believe that this topic should not be taken seriously in the study, since whatever feeling the king experienced, it was doomed to be weak and fickle, and therefore not have a significant impact on him.

Researchers tend to focus on three main Jacobite favorites: Esme Stuart, Robert Carr and George Villiers. I would like to dwell in more detail on existing approaches to analyzing their relationships. The 17th century laid the foundation for a critical approach to their assessment. The first comments of contemporaries were quite restrained: Bishop Goodman speaks only of some coldness between Jacob and his wife Anna of Denmark, and John Oglander gently, even somewhat enthusiastically, describes Jacob’s relationship with his favorites: “I have never seen a husband in love who would "As often as King James spoiled his lovely wife, he spoiled his favorites, especially the Duke of Buckingham." The subsequent remarks regarding the fact that the king constantly shows him very open signs of attention in public (hugs, kisses) and applies to Buckingham, since if he were a woman, and he tried to match this in clothing and manners, are already quite hard temper, and the king's behavior is considered scandalous and dissolute. This trend continues to persist throughout the 18th-20th centuries. However, new directions are gradually emerging: a predominant emphasis on the friendly nature of their relationship and the displacement of the queen from this male society, emphasizing Jacob’s aesthetic feelings for Buckingham (which explains such a deep attachment), recognition of Jacob’s feelings for his favorite as superficial, evidence of a public-symbolic nature their friendship, or Jacob's paternalistic attitude towards Baking and his family, the recognition of the physical side of their relationship as the norm, or the denial of its existence due to various factors. All of these trends continue to exist to this day, and one of the leading experts in this field, David Bergeron, admits that due to the complexity of the personal relationships between Jacob and his minions, it is quite difficult, and most importantly dangerous, to take a principled position on this issue. He believes that Yakov himself wrote best about his feelings and relationships, whose letters we will try to analyze, and on the basis of which we will try to imagine the various facets of these relationships and the role of correspondence in them.

Regarding the topic of Yakov’s relationship with his wife, we can note the following trend in the development of ideas of her environment as opposition to Yakov. Already when the formation of Anna of Denmark’s entourage in Scotland was underway, there was some opposition, both from Anna herself and from her court, to Jacob and his policies in this direction. Young Queen, who wanted to personally determine the composition of her court, refuses to accept a number of his nominations (for example, James Melville and John Maitland for the position of custodian of her personal papers and head of the council at her court), supports his opponents (Earl of Bothwell), her court becomes the center of Catholic influence. Therefore, contemporaries had the impression of the royal family as the center of constant clashes between spouses and attempts at their mutual influence. So the French ambassador, the Marquis de Rosny, wrote that the queen constantly demonstrates the disharmony that reigns there. In support of this, he cites the king's obvious reluctance for Anna to join him in England very soon. But she does not pay any attention to his warning and sets off without permission, and such disregard for her husband’s instructions was far from the only one. Based on this, de Rosny concludes that Jacob was weak and completely unable to cope with his wife, who so often acted against him.

This view, which also affirmed the queen's penchant for intrigue, led to the spread of the view that, at least in the Scottish period, the queen had a real political force, and her activity and success in this area even caused her husband to curl up. In addition, a sharp contrast is made between the strength of its influence in the Scottish period and the decline after the accession of James in England.

But modern researchers call this position into question. For example, Barbara Lewalski notes that even such an extraordinary woman as Anna was surrounded by men who did not allow her to actively participate in political life. If we turn to a less feminist approach, then Fedorov S.E. in a study of the Queen's Scottish entourage, notes that Anne's apparent independence and deliberateness in choosing her entourage can be considered rather an illusion, and her court is closely related to that of her husband, who used it as an effective tool for creating a certain balance between the various court factions.

The English period is also not so clear-cut. On the one hand, it is recognized that Anna’s influence at this time was even less than before. On the other hand, Lewalski identifies a number of ways in which Anne of Denmark struggled with such imperious isolation: retinue, appointments, political intrigue, public outings and cultural patronage. And thus, she continues the tradition of viewing Anna and her entourage as a kind of opposition to Jacob. But Lewalski herself pays attention mainly to the last two measures she highlighted, not considering the previous ones to be sufficiently effective.

It is precisely these areas that need to be considered, namely, to analyze the environment and court patronage of Anna, since they, having a more practical expression, would not only help determine the degree of Jacob's influence on Anna's retinue, the role played by her court, the strength and significance of her court patronage, but and decide whether there really was court opposition to Anne of Denmark.

More attention needs to be paid to the personal relationship between Anna and Yakov. Traditionally, after describing their romantic wedding, this topic gradually fades into the background. In this work I would like to concentrate on determining Jacob’s views on marriage and his idea of ​​an ideal wife.

In analyzing Jacob's relationship with his sons, the main thing for us will be the educational concept of the king. The figure of Prince Henry is presented quite idealistically. The emphasis is constantly placed on his extraordinary merits, on contrasting him with Jacob. As for Karl, main motive in assessing his relationship with his father - this is the theme of an unjustly forgotten child. Which received virtually no attention from parents. In view of this, if possible, it is necessary to compare his relations with his two sons and heirs.

In connection with the assigned tasks, the following sources were used in this work: correspondence of Jacob Stuart as the main source; Jacob's treatise “The King's Gift”; the correspondence of Lady Arabella Stewart and the compilation of memoirs published by Lucy Akin were brought in as additional sources.

The formation of Anna's circle began before she arrived in England. On the way to Berwick, she was met by a delegation of English nobility, but brought closer only those who independently met her in Scotland, namely Countess Bedford, Lady Garrinton, Hastings, Hatton. At the same time, Lady Kildare and Walsingham were refused admission to the private chamber. This displeased Jacob, as did the fact that instead of George Carew, whom he recommended, Anna appointed a certain Scotsman, Mr. Kennedy, to the post of chamberlain. Another conflict between the spouses led to the resignation of the latter. But Carew did not receive the expected position. Although he retained one of the most important posts at court - vice-chamberlain, heading the financial services of the queen consort. The ladies who were initially rejected by Anna were also accepted.

And in a letter dated February 2, 1604, Edward Seymour reports official appointments at the Queen's court.

So Arabella Stewart and Countess of Bedford quickly became ladies of the bedroom. Lady Derby, Suffolk, Rich, Nottingham, Susan Herbert, Walsingham were received in the drawing chamber, and the rest in the private chamber. The main services of Anna's court were headed by: Robert Sidney, Viscount Lisle - chamberlain of the queen consort, George Carew - vice-chamberlain, Robert Cecil - steward 1603 -1612, and from 1612 to 1615 this position was held by Edward Seymour, Thomas Knyvett head of the court Anne's advice, Henry Riosely was engaged in entertaining the queen and the heir to the throne.

The first thing that attracts attention is the immediate inclusion in Anna’s inner circle of representatives of noble English families, which was a necessary symbol of loyalty to the new subjects, showing the lack of preference for the Scots, who arrived in very large numbers, by the way, in access to the highest posts in the state (about as Yakov repeatedly stated). And of course, Anna’s refusal to Lady Kildare, the daughter of Admiral Nottingham and Lady Walsingham, disrupted his plans and led to Anna’s unpopularity among her new subjects. The same motives required the appointment as Chamberlain not of the Scotsman Kennedy, but of an Englishman. And in this case, all that Anna managed to do was not accept a specific candidacy.

It is also interesting to consider individual representatives of the queen’s entourage. So, given the description given by Dudley Carleton in 1604, the presence in the queen’s immediate circle of two representatives of the Herbert family, Anne and Susan, this can most likely be explained by Jacob’s affection for the latter’s husband. Philip Hebert was the youngest son of Henry Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, and was considered the first Englishman to become a favorite of the king. His growing influence over James explains the number of his relatives in the queen's retinue.

There we also see Lady Suffolk and Lady Frances Howard, wife and daughter of Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk. It is known that no family at that time received as many awards and privileges as the old Howard family. Even under Elizabeth, they invariably supported his candidacy, and were in secret correspondence with Jacob and were among the first to meet the new king. Lady Francis will soon become the wife of another favorite of Jacob, Robert Kara, whom, as we know, Anna did not sympathize with..

Lady Penelope Rich was the sister of the Earl of Essex

Lucy, Countess of Bedford, was the daughter of John Harrington, rumored to be involved in the Essex plot.

Even earlier, Arabella Stewart, the king’s cousin, was close to Anna, as we learn from her letters. The motives for her appearance in Anna’s retinue are most interesting to us. As you know, Arabella was one of the many contenders for the English throne, which was vacated with the death of Elizabeth. And from a certain point of view, thanks to her English birth and descent from Margaret Tudor, she was a rather dangerous rival for Jacob. And if she herself could abandon all claims, then, as the future showed, others could well use her name as a slogan. Therefore, even during Jacob’s trip to England, the question arose about where it should be. Leaving her locked up in Hadwick Hall was not popular, and besides, it was not very safe, since there had already been an attempt to escape, but Jacob could not bring the person who had recently challenged his rights to the throne too close to him. Anna's retinue was an ideal option in this case. Arabella as the king's cousin and single woman Naturally she got there, but at the same time remained within his field of vision and control. Yakov probably also took into account the obstinacy of his own wife, who repeatedly brought his opponents closer to him. And as far as we can judge from Arabella's letters, she really was popular with Anna and sometimes even replaced her favorite Lady Bedford. This led to the fact that in the case of Cobham's letter, Arabella completely took the side of the crown.

The most important posts in Anna's court are also mainly occupied by people who enjoy Jacob's favor more than his spouses. Three of them were members Privy Council: This is Cecil, Nyvette, Carew. Thomas Knyvett, despite his position, was not distinguished by great political talents, and owed his rise under James to the fact that he was involved in raising his favorite Mary. The details of his appointment are not known, but most likely he played the role of a screen, since, according to evidence, Cecil ruled everyone both at the court of James and Anna, although he did not occupy the highest position with her. This reminds us of the unfortunate appointment of Maitland in the 1590s. Now the position of head of the council was also occupied by not such a bright character as Cecil, who could have raised Anna’s objections, but completely devoted to Jacob, which allowed the Secretary of State to keep real control in his hands.

Henry Wriosley belongs to the category of Essex's comrades, for whose participation in the conspiracy he was stripped of all his titles and placed in the Tower. In 1603 he was released by James and restored to the earldom of Southampton.

Robert Sidney was a close friend of the Earl of Essex, who enjoyed the latter's support in his advancement at Elizabeth's court, but did not take an active part in the conspiracy. He would owe his rise to the fact that, being the head of the English mission to Scotland and a friend of the Earl of Mar, he was, as it were, an intermediary between Cecil and James.

From this short review, we can identify several approximate groups of people who entered Anna’s retinue at the direct suggestion of Yakov.

· relatives of his favorites

· persons (or their relatives) involved in the Essex case

· persons directly involved in the installation of James to the English throne

representatives of rehabilitated families

· those who needed to be kept under control

Thus, we can talk about Jacob’s rather large influence on Anna’s circle. All categories except the last owed their position directly to James, and it would have been surprising if they had opposed their benefactor on the side of the queen.

It can also be concluded that the circle of people whom Anna could bring closer to her was sufficiently limited, partly by selected categories, partly by the direct will of Yakov. This is proven by the described story with the appointment of Chamberlain. Resisting a direct candidate, she preferred Carew, a man no less devoted to her husband (R. Sidney, as an experienced diplomat, was often used by Jacob.) From this point of view, such favorites as Bedford and Rich do not look like figures opposed to Jacob. And there are not so many examples of successful resistance to appointments and “recommendations”.

As Lewalski notes, Anna was already choosing her favorites, regardless of her political or religious leanings. Since her influence was oppressed by the Howards and Car, she turned to Robert Sidney, George Carew, Earl of Pembroke. Thus, the queen was not the head of any of the court groups, but joined them depending on the degree to which her interests were respected, so one cannot speak of the queen’s entourage as an organized force in opposition to James.

1.2 Queen's court patronage

But if the choice of persons is limited, and Anna joins various groups depending on her interests, then in this case it is necessary to consider her court patronage, to what extent and in relation to which persons it was really effective.

As already mentioned, the queen, trying to cope with the power of the Howards, relies on the numerous connections of her favorite Lady Bedford and brings Robert Sidney, George Carew, the Earl of Pembroke, etc. closer to her. Thus, an attempt is made to exert the opposite effect: Anna tries to maintain (or gain) influence on Yakov, promoting his own people.

Moreover, Sydney can be called one of Anna's favorites. In addition to the position of chamberlain, he was surveyor-general of her revenues, manager of her estates in Kent, and a member of her council.

The situation with George Carew, who was initially sharply denied the position, is interesting. But then the queen’s patronage helped him take a number of government posts and speed up the process of obtaining the baronial title in 1605.

It is unknown how valid this policy was and what results it led to. Perhaps the illusion of Anna's power over the choice of her husband's favorites, which was subsequently created, was a response to it.

However, if she could promote people already close to Yakov with great success, then in relation to those initially undesirable she, as we see, often failed. There are two clear confirmations of this: the fates of Arabella Stewart and Sir Walter Raleigh.

It is known that Anna, like her son, admired Raleigh’s many talents, corresponded with him and patronized him. She trusted him so much that during her son’s illness she sent him for medicine. And despite the fact that Prince Henry died, she did not deprive him of her favor and interceded for his release, and encouraged his idea of ​​\u200b\u200ban expedition to Guiana (she was even going to visit his ship). And after the failure of the expedition, she became one of his zealous defenders, even writing a letter to Buckingham about this. But in such an important matter, which could bring with it foreign policy complications, Anna’s opinion was no longer listened to. Arabella Stewart, being placed in the queen's retinue out of necessity, becomes very close to her. From the very first days, she sings Anna’s praises, sometimes making caustic remarks towards Yakov. The dislike was mutual, despite such a close relationship, the king had a negative attitude towards anyone who could prevent him from taking the English throne. And her such rapid approach to Anna could have been one of the latter’s forms of protest, often used in the Scottish period, which somewhat interfered with Jacob’s well-functioning control and use of his wife’s retinue. And in the story of the wedding of Arabella and William Seymour, Anna, of course, supported her. We have many letters written by Lady Stuart to the queen herself and her favorite Jane Drumond with requests, hopes and confidence that she will certainly be helped. And Anna actually conveyed her petitions to the king several times, asked for her, but in reality she turned out to be not as strong as her ward had hoped. Although it should be noted that in order to oppose Jacob in such a dynastic issue, it was necessary to have a certain amount of courage or to strongly believe that you have great power. In the problem of her influence on advancements at court, the question of her role in the emergence of new favorites, of course, arises. In early biographies there is such a point of view that Jacob created the illusion of her enormous influence in this area in order to give her a feeling of great power over him and thereby prevent possible outbursts of indignation, which modern authors generally agree with. Lewalski points out that Archbishop Abbott involved Anne in the conspiracy against Somerset, as this was allowed by James, who did not want a repetition of their enmity, but with Villiers. And, in principle, Anna’s permission to appoint the latter to the position of cupbearer was very symbolic.

Therefore, it cannot be considered that Anna succeeded in such types of struggle as household, appointments and political intrigues. Her influence here was extremely low, limited and often an illusion, bringing the necessary balance and harmony to court life.

1.3 Personal relationships

Anna, in fact, was never a very close person to Yakov. In his treatise, The Royal Gift, Jacob gives the following parameters necessary for a royal bride. He gives three reasons for marriage: curbing lust, having children, and finding a helper in a wife. From this he draws the following conclusions. Firstly, the king should under no circumstances marry a barren woman, since heirs are his responsibility not only as a man, but also as a king. Secondly, you cannot marry a woman with a bad character and a vicious upbringing, since the wife should become a support, not a hindrance. Thirdly, you need to marry a woman belonging to the same church, because, with different faiths, the spouses will never become partners, and their differences will not only be copied by their subjects, splitting the country, but will also affect the worldview of their children. Yakov is skeptical about the possibility of remaking faith. Like minor ones, but important conditions When concluding a marriage, Jacob considers beauty, wealth, and friendship between the spouses.

Anna was beautiful, brought Jacob a good dowry, and her origins did not disappoint. But with all this, the period of love, undoubtedly present in their relationship, when Yakov, still unfamiliar with his bride, personally came to Denmark for her, so as not to delay the long-awaited wedding due to the storm, ended quite quickly. It is difficult to say what influenced this more: the king’s penchant for male favorites or the unexpectedly decisive character of his wife. Anna did not become the support for him that, in his opinion, a wife should have become. The fact that he successfully used her character to create a balance of power at court does not exclude the fact that on a personal level this brought him some disappointment in the image of an ideal wife he had created. In a letter he writes to the queen after her unsuccessful attempt to take Henry in his absence, James writes that he married her because of her noble birth, but the love and respect he now has for her is only because she is his legal wife, who must be like him and not succumb to the erroneous prejudices that those who are devoted to him are her enemies and that he always preferred her to everyone. For him, Anna is first and foremost a queen, so involved in power that she must be more careful in her behavior, since it leaves a mark on the image of Jacob. The letter to his wife is more reminiscent of the text of his own treatise, rather than an address to a loved one. Undoubtedly, their relationship was also reflected in Anna’s passion for Catholicism.

Thus, an analysis of the environment of Anne of Denmark and her patronage gives an idea of ​​how real the court opposition of the queen was, and what was the place of her court in the system of relations created by James.

The study of the composition of her retinue reveals a number of important points. So, we see that in Anna’s circle, unlike her husband, the British predominate. And Jacob not only took the initiative in such a situation, but for the most part he himself allocated places at his wife’s court, as shown by the selected groups in her environment, which owe their position to the king. This proves not only the determining influence of James in this matter and the largely impotent resistance of Anne, but also that her court played an important role in the king's court politics, both satisfying the supporters of James, providing them with places, and being an English counterweight to a sufficient extent to the Scottish entourage of the king himself. The selected group of “controlled” also indicates one of the functions of the queen’s court necessary for her husband. This feature of Anna’s patronage as the promotion of persons already nominated by Jacob is not only an attempt by Anna to somehow maneuver between various groups, trying to gain influence over her husband, but can also be considered as a unique way of creating relative balance between the mentioned groups. And in this sense, the idea of ​​the queen’s court as a kind of opposition to Jacob was quite beneficial. And such an idea was really created, which proves that Anna was often approached as an intermediary in relations with her husband. And although her patronage, as has been shown, had no great importance, it was the presence of opposition that was important. From the same point of view one can look at illusion great influence Anne's selection of royal favorites. And perhaps that is why Yakov did not interfere with the development of his wife’s cultural patronage, because, without causing real harm, he formed the necessary image of their relationship.

Thus, the question posed can be answered in two ways. On the one hand, her frequent resistance to appointments, patronage of many disliked by Yakov, and finally, cultural patronage allow us to say that the opposition in to a certain extent was really present in reality. On the other hand, we see that she can be considered rather an illusion created for the necessary balance of power, and her court, as in the previous period, is an organic part of Jacob’s court with its own functions and tasks.

If we evaluate Anna’s personality based on the presented material, we can highlight the following points. Given the limited possibilities, the fact that her environment and herself were a necessary and organic part of Jacob's policy should not, apparently, cause negative characteristic.

At the same time, it is of course important that a certain amount of Anna’s independence remained, without having a subversive and scandalous connotation, and also demonstrating the rather strong-willed and decisive character of the queen, perhaps simply not so experienced in diplomacy and intrigue. This independence, expressed in the aforementioned cultural patronage, led to the rise of art and the possibility of development within its circle of many outstanding cultural figures of this era.

As for personal relationships, with the exception of a short period of falling in love, it is difficult to call their relationship close. Anna meant much more to Jacob as his queen and wife than as his lover.

Unfortunately, the correspondence we have between Henry and Jacob is not large enough to cover in detail the history of the relationship between them. It is difficult to say how frequent the meetings between father and son were before James assumed the English throne. Henry was raised from infancy under the protection of the Earl of Mar. This was a Scottish tradition, justified by the rather tense political situation in the country: thus the heir was isolated from the influence of numerous political groups. In a letter written on the occasion of James's departure to England in 1603, the king apologizes to his son, since due to the importance of the event and the inevitable rush, he would not have time to see him before leaving. But he promises that this will be compensated by their speedy meeting and a long time together. In the letter that Thomas Birch retells in his biography, Henry writes that he cannot be offended, but only congratulate his father on such a wonderful conclusion to events. The fact that he is still saddened by his father’s departure, and that they apparently met quite often, we also read in a letter to Anna of Denmark, in which, inviting his mother to see him, Henry argues that in connection with his departure his father will now be deprived of the pleasure of their frequent meetings.

All of James' letters contain an element of instruction. The king was very attentive to the education of the future heir to the throne and carefully controlled it. Adam Newton was appointed as the prince's tutor when he was 5 years old. strong point there were foreign languages ​​and a brilliant Latin style. Concern for the prince's education included both concern for the correct style of writing and the correct, from Jacob's point of view, position of the prince on a particular issue.

So in the letter that Jacob writes on the eve of his departure, he describes a whole pattern of behavior that Henry must adhere to in connection with his father receiving the English throne. Firstly, he should perceive this rather not as an increase in his own position, which, in fact, remained the same - crown prince, and therefore feel excessive pride and vanity about this, but as a significant increase in his responsibilities. He should never be overly arrogant. And especially carefully, the prince must pay attention to how he now selects his surroundings. The main thing that he should be guided by in this matter is his good origin and the opinion of his father (here in the letter, Yakov recommends a valuable person who can be used in the most “domestic” matters). The prince should also show great caution in relation to the English: he should behave with all of them as beloved subjects, avoid excessive ceremony so that they do not feel like strangers, treat with all the cordiality that they deserve at the moment (here not quite it is clear what Jacob means: the difficult time after the death of Elizabeth, or the general disposition towards the English nation after its correct “choice” regarding the new monarch).

Jacob immediately mentions that, along with the letter, he is sending his son his recently published book, which the heir should study as carefully as possible. Jacob notes that all the situations that Henry will have to face are addressed in one way or another in this book, which from now on should become a measure of truth for the heir, not only in assessing certain problems, but also in assessing the various advice that is given to him. Of course we are talking about the “Royal Gift”.

In another letter, Yakov gives two pieces of advice with which, he believes, the heir will cope with any task assigned to him. The first is an unwavering belief in own strength and casting aside childhood shyness, for fate helps the brave and rejects the timid. The second is to do exactly what you are doing at the moment.

However, we also need to dwell on the question of to whom these two letters from the king were addressed more. The fact is that at the time of their writing the prince was only 9 years old. Despite numerous indications of development ahead of age, it cannot be argued that Jacob’s advice applied directly to his heir. So in one of these letters we come across a passage where Yakov writes that he is looking forward to a letter, actually from his son: which will not only be written in his handwriting. In another letter, speaking of correct selection environment, Jacob writes that the heir will be informed about the assessment given by his father: there is no doubt through whom he will act this information. Thus, this correspondence can be considered rather a kind of exchange between the prince’s mentors, in order to demonstrate the knowledge he had acquired, and the king, who noted successes and achievements and set the further direction of the educational process. Moreover, this concerned not only the actual intellectual achievements of the young heir to the throne, but also his correct position V various issues, or rather the correct position of his mentors.

In this light there will be more clear advice regarding the behavior of the heir with his entourage. Of course, a nine-year-old boy, even properly brought up, could not correctly position himself in the more difficult circumstances caused by his father's new position. His circle of contacts had previously been quite limited, and with its current increase, taking into account the inclusion of the British, it was necessary to develop a general line of behavior for the heir, which would at the same time correspond to the interests of his father and would allow Henry and his mentors to maneuver quite carefully in numerous court groupings. This line was following Jacob’s instructions in selecting candidates for the prince’s inner circle and the heir’s absolutely loyal attitude towards all representatives of the English nation, without exception. Both were a reflection of James's original policy after inheriting the English throne.

As in the case of Anne of Denmark, the prince's entourage was completely formed by the king, which was facilitated by the young age of the heir. This allowed Jacob to pursue a further fairly flexible policy regarding the shuffling of the inner circle of the royal family.

The cautious position of the monarch, who sought to strengthen his position in the new state and in no way offend his new subjects, was carried out not only through the environment of the queen, who, as we see, actively opposed the policies of her husband, but also through the heir to the throne, whose actions were much more controllable easier.

Considering from this point of view, the advice that Yakov addressed to his son, we can see a unique educational concept embedded in them. As for the first advice, this can be considered as an instruction from the king to place greater independence and decisiveness in the actions of the heir. The time had come when it was time to cast aside youthful timidity. The young man had to be taught by his teachers to think and act independently. This idea is confirmed by the king’s desire, mentioned in the same letter, to receive a letter from his son himself: which is not only written in his handwriting, but will also be the fruit of his own thoughts. The second piece of advice talks about teaching the heir to be attentive when making decisions. specific issue, full concentration on the problem posed to the front.

The fact that the heir is already at the stage when he must learn to navigate on his own is confirmed by Jacob’s wish that he begin studying the “Royal Gift” (it was written by the king several years earlier). His training in independence, however, does not exclude the king’s control over the way of thinking and the position of his heir, since he considers it necessary that the prince initially fully rely on his father’s judgments and, depending on them, build his system of perception of the world around him. “The Royal Gift” is, in fact, a textbook on the art of statecraft for the future king. In terms of genre, it belongs to the group of “mirrors” and “instructions” to sovereigns, which spread in Europe from the 15th century. Since this work was originally intended for one reader, the heir to the throne, it will be interesting to consider its main provisions in the light of Henry’s relationship with his father.

What is unique is that such a work was written by a monarch in principle. The personality of Jacob undoubtedly had an influence here, leaving us a very significant literary heritage. The work itself is divided into dedication, the first part is about the duties of the monarch as a Christian, the second is about governing the state, the third is about the behavior of the monarch in certain situations.

Jacob himself writes about the motives for writing this work that as a father he considers it obligatory to take care of the education of his son, and as a king to ensure that he receives sufficient training in all aspects of the activities of the monarch. He encourages Henry to take this work with him everywhere, study it carefully and put it into practice. Since Yakov cannot be with his son all the time, he hopes that this book will become his best adviser, free from flattery. If the heir does not listen to the parent’s advice, then Yakov writes that he would rather not have children at all than be the father of a weak child.

We see that Yakov was fully aware that under the conditions of government, it was impossible for him to take personal part in the upbringing of his son. But, as we observe both in his letters and in the preface, he did not at all let this issue take its course, but took an active part in it, albeit in a peculiar form. It is Yakov who plays the leading role in the process of raising the heir, and he strives for his son to trust and respect the opinion of his father as much as possible. Moreover, Yakov strives for the heir not only to receive a good theoretical education, but also in his practice to have support in the form of real experience and approximate diagram behavior. Of course, the desire to earn the approval of the reigning parent should have been one of the important incentives for the heir, which Jacob uses, however, he softens the harsh statement about his reluctance to be the father of the weak, emphasizing that he believes in his son, since since the Lord gave him a son-heir , then he will make sure that he turns out to be worthy.

In “The Royal Gift,” Jacob speaks several times about the birth of his first son as a Divine gift. For him, Henry is, first of all, an heir (of course, the general orientation of the work must also be taken into account here). In his advice, he recommends that Henry treat his future son this way: he needs to be loved, but at the same time try to invest in him as much as his age allows. This is what he put into practice. In a biography dedicated to Charles I, the researcher notes that it was much easier for Jacob to become a mentor to his children, in which he succeeded quite well, than as their father, in which he frankly failed. And most best shape for him there was remote care. Many derive this attitude of Jacob towards his own children from his own difficult childhood, in which he was deprived of communication with his parents: the death of his father before his birth and the imprisonment of his mother suggested the king's cool relationship with his own family. From this point of view, “The Royal Gift” is a rather valuable source for us, since this work was the plane where Jacob actually showed participation and care for his children, in this case, Henry.

The topic of relationships with parents is depicted in this way in the treatise. Yakov views insulting his parents as one of those crimes that cannot be forgiven. This not only disrupts relationships with them, it makes children doubt. But, according to Jacob, those who betrayed and hated your ancestors cannot be loyal and love. In general, the passage about respect for parents is quite dry. Apart from the example of the young Scottish lords who independent life they begin with a break with their mother, and we have the standard turn of phrase for this genre: “honor your father and mother.”

What is Jacob trying to teach his heir? His first desire is to instill a sense of responsibility in Henry. He should not perceive his position as pleasure, he should not enjoy his superiority over others. Throughout the entire work, Jacob emphasizes that being a monarch is daily work, a weight on the shoulders, that a high position only increases the number of responsibilities and the degree of guilt for misdeeds.. He gives short review the state of Scotland and the duties of the monarch towards his subjects. The king especially emphasizes the importance of education for the king and gives advice to the heir on how to control his own education. Special attention in all parts, Jacob pays attention to the behavior of the monarch, since he is an example for many. In the first part, speaking about sins, the king indicates that every minor sin of his will be copied by his subjects, for which he will be held accountable before God. In the second part, Yakov several times focuses on the importance of control over his immediate environment, as an example of behavior for the entire country. The third part is entirely devoted to how to behave in a given situation, and Yakov also pays attention to such little things as correct speech, beautiful writing style, correct choice of clothes. An interesting moment is where we see the monarch’s obvious desire to introduce Henry to his own hobby, namely writing. Yakov writes that it is better to write in your native language, not to write in a large volume, as this can distract from more important matters, and always remember that what you write will forever remain a testament to your intelligence and character. We see the same thing in the passage about hunting, which Yakov gives preference to any other sport.

Despite the fact that Jacob claims to be a review of the duties of the monarch, this review is closely connected with the personality of the king and openly imposes his line of behavior on his successor. Thus, in the passage about the overly independent and barbaric Scottish aristocracy, Jacob considers the main thing for Henry to diligently fulfill his laws in relation to them.

He doesn’t shy away from marriage either. He considers it necessary to maintain purity before marriage, since one cannot demand from one what one does not observe oneself. Jacob advises his heir to avoid premarital affairs, despite the fact that they are now considered a minor sin. Treason is dangerous not only for the relationship between spouses, but also as a violation of the vow made at the altar, since it can produce illegitimate offspring, which in the future can greatly complicate the life of the legal heirs, but doom them to the absence of the latter.

He gives three reasons for marriage: curbing lust, having children, and finding a helper in a wife. From this he draws the following conclusions: Firstly, the king should under no circumstances marry a barren woman, since heirs are his responsibility not only as a man, but also as a king. Secondly, you cannot marry a woman with a bad character and a vicious upbringing, since the wife should become a support, not a hindrance. Thirdly, you need to marry a woman belonging to the same church, because, with different faiths, the spouses will never become partners, and their differences will not only be copied by their subjects, splitting the country, but will also affect the worldview of their children. Yakov is skeptical about the possibility of remaking faith. The king regretfully admits that there are few such princesses. You cannot marry (especially for the first time) a woman of lower status. Yakov considers beauty, wealth, and friendship between spouses as secondary but important conditions for marriage.

Thus, the choice of a future wife for his son is a very important issue for Jacob. This passage turned out to be not only a theoretical hypothesis, but also a serious problem when it turned out that there really weren’t many princesses suitable for the heir to the English throne from the point of view of his father. Moreover, despite the fact that in the treatise Jacob writes about the undesirability of early marriage and that he writes these instructions more in case of his death, he still strives to marry Henry while he is alive, and to take the most active part in the choice, since the son is still Still, in comparison with him, he is not sufficiently versed in this matter. It should be noted that the opinions of the ardent Protestant Henry on the issue of marriage with the Spanish princess James were not greatly taken into account. And although he clearly contradicted in my own words The need for religious compatibility, the desire to independently solve such an important problem, forced Yakov to neglect such an important condition.

Jacob’s authoritarianism is visible not only in the matter of choosing his son’s bride, but also in the matter of forming his entourage. A significant part of the treatise is also devoted to this. Jacob literally sets the principles of creation and relations with the immediate circle of the heir to the throne, not to mention the fact that he actually organizes it in practice for quite a long time. On the one hand, Yakov gives truly verified and wise advice on this issue. He diligently emphasizes that the prince’s entourage will be his image in the eyes of the people, and therefore he must be selected very carefully so as not to compromise himself. Recommends that people be more careful about recruiting through intermediaries, so that it doesn’t turn out that they are serving them and not him. Also about the need to monitor the courtyard much more than the entire kingdom, since it is a model and an example. But on the other hand, as in the letters, we see a desire for control over the heir to the throne. Jacob especially emphasizes that Henry, after his death, should be very attentive to his former comrades. Yakov believes that for the heir they should become the most trusted persons. This, in his opinion, will not only provide Henry with the best servants, since those who did not love their father cannot love their son, but will also demonstrate filial respect for Jacob and will be proof of his love for his father. Under no circumstances should Henry return those who were disgraced under James. We literally encounter here the following phrase: “you must love those whom I love and hate those whom I hate.”

Thus, we see that Yakov seeks to completely control all the most important moments of his son’s life.

There is one more issue that needs to be noted when considering the relationship between Jacob and his eldest son. This is Jacob's bias towards the growing popularity of his heir. Hume notes that historians speak of Prince Henry with special affection, and this is indeed so. The same Hume writes that already at the age of eighteen, the young prince inspired more respect than his father, for all his experience, solidity and learning. He was not interested in empty amusements, and his greatest hobby was the art of war. Hume also says that Henry most likely despised his father for excessive cowardice and pedantry.

The biography of Arabella Stewart also notes the king's excessive sensitivity to the people's love for his heir. Just like in the biography of Charles, there is a brewing conflict between Jacob and his heir over the latter’s excessive independence and insolence. The author describes a hunting incident when the heir, in response to his father’s caustic comment, left the event, pulling the lion’s share of those present. Also commenting on Karl’s relationship with his father, he notes that he found his father in bad times, when he decided that he had dealt with all the problems and having received the reward for his work - the English throne, he could finally rest. This thesis can also be applied to the eldest son’s relationship with Jacob. Although Henry did not witness the flourishing of favoritism under Carr and Buckingham, his father's behavior and court were still very different from the one he depicted in the Royal Gift.

This kind of tension did occur in their relationship, but it should not be greatly exaggerated. This perception of their relationship is largely based both on the prevailing opinion of Jacob, as a weak man and monarch, and on the image of the prince idealized by historians. In reality, Henry's independence had in many ways the same basis as the illusory independence of his mother under the real control of Jacob.

As for Henry’s relationship with Anna of Denmark, one must take into account that before moving to England, their meetings, like those with Jacob, were quite rare. Until the age of 5 or 6, the prince was under the guardianship of the Dowager Countess Mar, whom he later recalled with tenderness. The mother’s attempts to get involved in raising her son led nowhere (see chapter Anna). However, even after arriving in England, their relationship did not become closer. This was partly hindered by the religious factor: Anna’s passion for Catholicism was no longer a special secret, and strongly contradicted the sharply Protestant views of the heir. As with Jacob, the prince broke up with her over the issue of marriage with a Catholic princess, which the queen passionately dreamed of. However, after the death of her son, Anna demonstratively mourned, using this as an excuse not to attend a number of events related to the wedding of her daughter and the Elector of the Palatinate.

Thus, we see that the most striking dominant feature in relation to Jacob and Henry is the king’s desire to keep his heir under control at all costs. Yakov pays the greatest attention to the education of his eldest son, trying to establish the worldview and model of behavior he needs, a prime example of which is the “Tsar’s Gift.” This does not exclude, as already mentioned, Yakov’s sincere concern as a father for a good education for his son. But first of all, Henry is perceived by him as the heir to the throne, and it is this function that carries the most profound meaning for Jacob. emotional burden. The king was not capable of a closer relationship with his son; for him, remote care was the maximum

2.2 Carl

Compared to his younger brother, Henry saw his parents regularly. Born in 1600, Charles, at whose birth the king was not present, was an incredibly weak child. He was immediately entrusted to the care of Lady Margaret Stewart, Jane Drummond and Marion Hepburn. The little prince's nannies received generous support from Jacob, but during this period his care for his second son was limited to this. Due to poor health, at first no one believed that the child could survive. When James went to England in 1603, Charles remained in Scotland, and it was decided that he would follow his parents as soon as he was strong enough to do so. Before leaving, Alexander Seton was appointed his tutor. It cannot be said that parents forgot about their youngest child. They were constantly interested in his health. In 1604, Jacob sent a doctor to Scotland, who examined the child and allowed him to move to England. In the same year, Charles was brought to England, and his care was entrusted to Robert and Elizabeth Currie. Due to the boy's still poor health, this was considered a rather dubious honor, but the Carries successfully completed their task. As the researcher notes in Karl's biography, they gave Karl what the boy so lacked during this period - a family. Indeed, as in the case of Henry, they note that Karl has a much stronger attachment to his teacher than to his mother.

The relationship with my mother was quite difficult. Anna really had a hard time establishing contact with her children: with her relationships with Henry and Elizabeth completely damaged (in both cases, Anna’s commitment to Catholicism played a big role), Karl began to be considered her favorite. Carlton notes that the lack of maternal attention later greatly affected the prince’s relationships with women. However, in a letter written by Karl during his mother’s illness, he writes that this event deprived him of the opportunity to see her and he would like to give her some recipe that would help her heal or at least make her laugh. In 1619, when Anna was dying, it was Charles who slept in the room next to her.

Carlton brings up the following concept regarding the duality of Carl's relationship with his father. The fact is that Karl found Jacob by no means in the latter’s most brilliant years. During this period, the king, who had finally received the long-awaited English throne, relaxed, considering his duty fulfilled, and finally decided to live for his own pleasure, especially since, as he believed, the English treasury allowed it. The dominance of favorites, constant entertainment and luxury of the court created in Charles the impression of his father as a weak monarch, whose way of life was not at all sympathetic to him. This alienation was also facilitated by the behavior of Yakov himself, who, as mentioned above, did not at all strive for close communication with his children. With all this, Carlton also notes the opposite trend in their relationship - this is Charles’s desire to win the sympathy of his father, whom he, despite the contempt he felt for his way of life, considered the best king and father.

The idea that Karl disliked his father’s lifestyle is also supported by Young, pointing out that Karl tried to do exactly the opposite: if under Jacob he clearly preferred favorites to the family, then Karl sought to create an ideal marriage if Jacob was emotional and sociable , then Karl is secretive and silent.

In general, in assessing Karl’s childhood and youth, the prevailing idea is of him as an unhappy child, closed in the shadow of his own brother, deprived of parental attention.

Carlton believes that Karl’s letters clearly show attempts to “buy” parental warmth and affection. He repeatedly writes to his father in Latin, trying to demonstrate the efforts he is making to study the language so beloved by Jacob. He constantly notifies his father of his successes in training, which, as mentioned above, was also very much appreciated by the monarch. However, if we compare his behavior with the behavior of the king's eldest son, it cannot be said that it was very different and that there was something special about it. Jacob demanded that his children write to him in Latin in order to control the learning process: so Henry had to write obligatory letters to him from the age of 5. So such letters-reports about the learning process cannot be considered in Karl’s case as some kind of distinctive feature of him that somehow distinguished his relationship with his father. The desire to gain parental approval is natural, and Yakov, as already mentioned in his treatise, believed that the need to earn his father's attention should become one of the additional motives for his son's desire to study. This statement, of course, did not apply only to Henry. Therefore, it is impossible to completely agree with the author about Karl’s lack of attention from his father. This was the already described position of the king regarding the education of his children: increased attention to education, and studiously avoiding closer personal contacts.

A separate stage in Charles’s relationship with Jacob was the time after Buckingham’s ascension. The death of Prince Henry did not change much in the relationship between father and son - they remained distant. Charles's general unsociability and cold attitude towards his father's court, and the dominance of favorites in his father's life, did not contribute to any improvement. Under Somerset, Charles was almost completely excluded from the king's inner circle. Changes occurred only under Buckingham and were associated with a number of reasons relating not so much to Charles and Jacob themselves, but to the plans of the favorite. At first, he also did not seek to attract a young heir, but Jacob was getting old, and Buckingham’s plans did not include losing influence under the next king. He gradually begins to draw Jacob into Karl's relationship. He was rather cool about his father’s obviously romantic relationship with Buckingham, but according to Young, during the period when Charles began to be drawn into this circle, such relations between James and Buckingham gradually faded away due to the king’s old age and the marriage of his favorite. This, in his opinion, helped Karl psychologically accept this situation. Carlton believes that Karl quite consciously accepted the role of second violin in this trio, realizing that he could not compete with the favorite for his father's attention, and soon firmly took such a position in their relationship, which can be characterized by addressing him, which he constantly used in relation to Jacob in his correspondence with him and Buckingham - “Baby Charles”. This idea is confirmed in the Spanish correspondence of Jacob with Charles and Buckingham. Karl, even when the letters seem to be addressed to the heir, he clearly remains somewhere in the background. All of Yakov’s emotions fall to the share of Backingegm, while Karl receives mainly instructions on behavior (which again draws parallels with Henry). It cannot be said that Jacob does not have any special feelings for his son, who is in a rather dangerous situation for that time; no, he was worried about Karl, but his anxiety, as with Henry, is more about the fear of losing an heir, rather than a loved one.

Charles's relationship with Buckingham is usually assessed as fraternal. Many are surprised how he, who was so hostile to his father’s lifestyle, was able to keep his all-powerful favorite with him. It was greatly influenced by the fact that Buckingham, in principle, was one of the first to show interest in him. Karl's failed attempts to get closer to Henry also had a strong impact. It must be said that not only the relationship between Yakov himself and his household, but also between them themselves was quite complex. Many people note Henry's dislike for Karl, whom he constantly teased. So Carlton believes that Jacob used his younger son to rein in his elder, pointing out Karl’s diligence, and once even promising to leave the crown to the latter. No matter how unrealistic this threat may be. This hardly contributed to the improvement of relations between the brothers. There is a well-known anecdote when, while waiting for the king, Henry took the headdress from Archbishop Abbott, put it on nine-year-old Charles and said that when he becomes king, he will make him Archbishop of Canterbury, since he studies a lot for this, and besides, long clothes will hide his crooked painful legs. Karl was so upset that he took off his clothes, stamped his feet and ran away in tears. Karl repeatedly tried to establish contact with his brother. Carlton writes that here too he tried in some way to buy his attention. Moreover, in his attempts, the inexperienced Karl often went too far - so when Henry and his entourage refused to change French fashion to Italian, Karl did the same. But despite all his attempts, Henry did not have the patience to communicate with his younger brother, he clearly preferred the company of his sister Elizabeth. However, Carleton, despite such clearly strained relations, points out that Karl took Henry’s death very hard.

Thus, it is necessary to note the following features of Jacob’s relationship with his youngest son. First of all, they were distinguished by Charles’s actual position by birth: he was not an heir, and, therefore, was not as important a figure for Jacob as Henry. The second is the prince’s poor health, which both reduced communication with his parents at first and initially influenced his image of a closed and weak being. In terms of education, he apparently received the same amount of attention as Henry, but in terms of personal relationships, he also did not advance beyond that, at least not until Buckingham appeared. In the last period of Jacob's reign, under the influence of his favorite, Karl became a little closer to his father, and took his special position between his father and his favorite, or rather next to them.

Parts. The first included the selected senior servants, primarily the Scots of the Royal Bedchamber, who received the lion's share of the royal favor, the second included all the other servants, at the expense of whom the savings were made. Thus, an almost insurmountable socio-economic barrier between servants was created at the Jacobite court. 3.2.Some features of the mechanism for obtaining court positions, ...

The social movement belongs to the lower strata of the army - the Ukrainian Cossacks (3) and, secondly, that the difference in public interests and aspirations divided the army into hostile class circles. The highest of them stood for Shuisky as the head of the existing social order; the lower ones sided with the Tushino thief, turning him from a dynastic contender into the leader of certain social groups. ...

He claims that it was Bestuzhev who proposed leaving almost all of Finland occupied by Russian troops to the Swedes: “Knowing well that Sweden was constantly becoming an object of intrigue of French and Prussian diplomacy, Bestuzhev-Ryumin preferred to conclude a long-term peace on moderate terms than to sign an agreement that would cause a desire to revise it immediately after signing." On the contrary, Bestuzhev, in...

Integration into the society of Kievan Rus. Chapter 4. Practical application of the materials of the thesis in the school course on the history of Russia 4.1 Argumentation of the appropriateness of using materials on the theme of the thesis International relations of Kievan Rus of the X-XII centuries. How separate topic is not presented for study in the school curriculum. In order to determine at which lessons or stages of a lesson this can be used...

Introduction

The question of Jacob’s relationship with his favorites lies on at least three levels: what he himself wrote about them, what his contemporaries wrote about it, and how later scientists analyzed it. This topic cannot be called irrelevant: for four centuries now it has been under the watchful eye of researchers of the history of England under the first Stuarts. The dominant point in the view of the sexual preferences of Elizabeth's successor is their rather harsh criticism, the main reason for which is their homosexual nature. The homosexuality of the first Stuart monarch, now recognized by almost everyone, was initially a serious moral obstacle to a deep analysis of his relationships with his favorites.

There are three main approaches to studying this issue. The first approach is based on a moral principle that finds such relationships repulsive and gives them a very negative assessment. The second group of researchers tries to avoid this topic whenever possible. The third approach is an attempt to give all hints about these relationships a fairly rational explanation that reduces the personal factor as such to nothing. A number of researchers also believe that this topic should not be taken seriously in the study, since whatever feeling the king experienced, it was doomed to be weak and fickle, and therefore not have a significant impact on him.

Researchers tend to focus on three main Jacobite favorites: Esme Stuart, Robert Carr and George Villiers. I would like to dwell in more detail on existing approaches to analyzing their relationships. The 17th century laid the foundation for a critical approach to their assessment. The first comments of contemporaries were quite restrained: Bishop Goodman speaks only of some coldness between Jacob and his wife Anna of Denmark, and John Oglander gently, even somewhat enthusiastically, describes Jacob’s relationship with his favorites: “I have never seen a husband in love who would " he spoiled his lovely wife as often as King James did his favorites, especially the Duke of Buckingham." The subsequent comments regarding the fact that the king constantly shows him very open signs of attention in public (hugs, kisses) and applies to Buckingham, since if he were a woman, and he tried to match this in clothing and manners, are already quite harsh in nature , and the king's behavior is considered scandalous and dissolute. This trend continues to persist throughout the 18th-20th centuries. However, new directions are gradually emerging: a predominant emphasis on the friendly nature of their relationship and the displacement of the queen from this male society, emphasizing Jacob’s aesthetic feelings for Buckingham (which explains such a deep attachment), recognition of Jacob’s feelings for his favorite as superficial, evidence of a public-symbolic nature their friendship, or Jacob's paternalistic attitude towards Baking and his family, the recognition of the physical side of their relationship as the norm, or the denial of its existence due to various factors. All of these trends continue to exist to this day, and one of the leading experts in this field, David Bergeron, admits that due to the complexity of the personal relationships between Jacob and his minions, it is quite difficult, and most importantly dangerous, to take a principled position on this issue. He believes that Yakov himself wrote best about his feelings and relationships, whose letters we will try to analyze, and on the basis of which we will try to imagine the various facets of these relationships and the role of correspondence in them.

This view, which also affirmed the queen's penchant for intrigue, led to the spread of the view that, at least in the Scottish period, the queen had real political power, and her activity and success in this area even caused her husband to curl up. In addition, a sharp contrast is made between the strength of its influence in the Scottish period and the decline after the accession of James in England.

But modern researchers call this position into question. For example, Barbara Lewalski notes that even such an extraordinary woman as Anna was surrounded by men who did not allow her to actively participate in political life. If we turn to a less feminist approach, then Fedorov S.E. in a study of the Queen's Scottish entourage, notes that Anne's apparent independence and deliberateness in choosing her entourage can be considered rather an illusion, and her court is closely related to that of her husband, who used it as an effective tool for creating a certain balance between the various court factions.

The English period is also not so clear-cut. On the one hand, it is recognized that Anna’s influence at this time was even less than before. On the other hand, Lewalski identifies a number of ways in which Anne of Denmark struggled with such imperious isolation: retinue, appointments, political intrigue, public outings and cultural patronage. And thus, she continues the tradition of viewing Anna and her entourage as a kind of opposition to Jacob. But Lewalski herself pays attention mainly to the last two measures she highlighted, not considering the previous ones to be sufficiently effective.

It is precisely these areas that need to be considered, namely, to analyze the environment and court patronage of Anna, since they, having a more practical expression, would not only help determine the degree of Jacob's influence on Anna's retinue, the role played by her court, the strength and significance of her court patronage, but and decide whether there really was court opposition to Anne of Denmark.

More attention needs to be paid to the personal relationship between Anna and Yakov. Traditionally, after describing their romantic wedding, this topic gradually fades into the background. In this work I would like to concentrate on determining Jacob’s views on marriage and his idea of ​​an ideal wife.

In analyzing Jacob's relationship with his sons, the main thing for us will be the educational concept of the king. The figure of Prince Henry is presented quite idealistically. The emphasis is constantly placed on his extraordinary merits, on contrasting him with Jacob. As for Karl, the main motive in assessing his relationship with his father is the theme of an unjustly forgotten child. Which received virtually no attention from parents. In view of this, if possible, it is necessary to compare his relations with his two sons and heirs.

In connection with the assigned tasks, the following sources were used in this work: correspondence of Jacob Stuart as the main source; Jacob's treatise “The King's Gift”; the correspondence of Lady Arabella Stewart and the compilation of memoirs published by Lucy Akin were brought in as additional sources.

1. Court opposition to the queen

1.1 Anne of Denmark's circle

The formation of Anna's circle began before she arrived in England. On the way to Berwick, she was met by a delegation of English nobility, but brought closer only those who independently met her in Scotland, namely Countess Bedford, Lady Garrinton, Hastings, Hatton. At the same time, Lady Kildare and Walsingham were refused admission to the private chamber. This displeased Jacob, as did the fact that instead of George Carew, whom he recommended, Anna appointed a certain Scotsman, Mr. Kennedy, to the post of chamberlain. Another conflict between the spouses led to the resignation of the latter. But Carew did not receive the expected position. Although he retained one of the most important posts at court - vice-chamberlain, heading the financial services of the queen consort. The ladies who were initially rejected by Anna were also accepted.

And in a letter dated February 2, 1604, Edward Seymour reports official appointments at the Queen's court.

So Arabella Stewart and Countess of Bedford quickly became ladies of the bedroom. Lady Derby, Suffolk, Rich, Nottingham, Susan Herbert, Walsingham were admitted to the drawingchamber, and the rest to the private chamber. The main services of Anna's court were headed by: Robert Sidney, Viscount Lisle - chamberlain of the queen consort, George Carew - vice-chamberlain, Robert Cecil - steward 1603 -1612, and from 1612 to 1615 this position was held by Edward Seymour, Thomas Knyvett head of the court Anne's advice, Henry Riosely was engaged in entertaining the queen and the heir to the throne.

The first thing that attracts attention is the immediate inclusion in Anna’s inner circle of representatives of noble English families, which was a necessary symbol of loyalty to the new subjects, showing the lack of preference for the Scots, who arrived in very large numbers, by the way, in access to the highest posts in the state (about as Yakov repeatedly stated). And of course, Anna’s refusal to Lady Kildare, the daughter of Admiral Nottingham and Lady Walsingham, disrupted his plans and led to Anna’s unpopularity among her new subjects. The same motives required the appointment as Chamberlain not of the Scotsman Kennedy, but of an Englishman. And in this case, all that Anna managed to do was not accept a specific candidacy.

It is also interesting to consider individual representatives of the queen’s entourage. So, given the description given by Dudley Carleton in 1604, the presence in the queen’s immediate circle of two representatives of the Herbert family, Anne and Susan, this can most likely be explained by Jacob’s affection for the latter’s husband. Philip Hebert was the youngest son of Henry Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, and was considered the first Englishman to become a favorite of the king. His growing influence over James explains the number of his relatives in the queen's retinue.

There we also see Lady Suffolk and Lady Frances Howard, wife and daughter of Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk. It is known that no family at that time received as many awards and privileges as the old Howard family. Even under Elizabeth, they invariably supported his candidacy, and were in secret correspondence with Jacob and were among the first to meet the new king. Lady Francis will soon become the wife of another favorite of Jacob, Robert Kara, whom, as we know, Anna did not sympathize with..

Lucy, Countess of Bedford, was the daughter of John Harrington, rumored to be involved in the Essex plot.

Even earlier, Arabella Stewart, the king’s cousin, was close to Anna, as we learn from her letters. The motives for her appearance in Anna’s retinue are most interesting to us. As you know, Arabella was one of the many contenders for the English throne, which was vacated with the death of Elizabeth. And from a certain point of view, thanks to her English birth and descent from Margaret Tudor, she was a rather dangerous rival for Jacob. And if she herself could abandon all claims, then, as the future showed, others could well use her name as a slogan. Therefore, even during Jacob’s trip to England, the question arose about where it should be. Leaving her locked up in Hadwick Hall was not popular, and besides, it was not very safe, since there had already been an attempt to escape, but Jacob could not bring the person who had recently challenged his rights to the throne too close to him. Anna's retinue was an ideal option in this case. Arabella, as the king's cousin and an unmarried woman, naturally fell there, but at the same time remained within his field of vision and control. Yakov probably also took into account the obstinacy of his own wife, who repeatedly brought his opponents closer to him. And as far as we can judge from Arabella's letters, she really was popular with Anna and sometimes even replaced her favorite Lady Bedford. This led to the fact that in the case of Cobham's letter, Arabella completely took the side of the crown.

The most important posts in Anna's court are also mainly occupied by people who enjoy Jacob's favor more than his spouses. Of these, three were members of the Privy Council: Cecil, Nivett, Carew. Thomas Knyvett, despite his position, was not distinguished by great political talents, and owed his rise under James to the fact that he was involved in raising his favorite Mary. The details of his appointment are not known, but most likely he played the role of a screen, since, according to evidence, Cecil ruled everyone both at the court of James and Anna, although he did not occupy the highest position with her. This reminds us of the unfortunate appointment of Maitland in the 1590s. Now the position of head of the council was also occupied by not such a bright character as Cecil, who could have raised Anna’s objections, but completely devoted to Jacob, which allowed the Secretary of State to keep real control in his hands.

Henry Wriosley belongs to the category of Essex's comrades, for whose participation in the conspiracy he was stripped of all his titles and placed in the Tower. In 1603 he was released by James and restored to the earldom of Southampton.

Robert Sidney was a close friend of the Earl of Essex, who enjoyed the latter's support in his advancement at Elizabeth's court, but did not take an active part in the conspiracy. He would owe his rise to the fact that, being the head of the English mission to Scotland and a friend of the Earl of Mar, he was, as it were, an intermediary between Cecil and James.

From this short review, we can identify several approximate groups of people who entered Anna’s retinue at the direct suggestion of Yakov.

· relatives of his favorites

· persons (or their relatives) involved in the Essex case

· persons directly involved in the installation of James to the English throne

representatives of rehabilitated families

· those who needed to be kept under control

Thus, we can talk about Jacob’s rather large influence on Anna’s circle. All categories except the last owed their position directly to James, and it would have been surprising if they had opposed their benefactor on the side of the queen.

It can also be concluded that the circle of people whom Anna could bring closer to her was sufficiently limited, partly by selected categories, partly by the direct will of Yakov. This is proven by the described story with the appointment of Chamberlain. Resisting a direct candidate, she preferred Carew, a man no less devoted to her husband (R. Sidney, as an experienced diplomat, was often used by Jacob.) From this point of view, such favorites as Bedford and Rich do not look like figures opposed to Jacob. And there are not so many examples of successful resistance to appointments and “recommendations”.

As Lewalski notes, Anna was already choosing her favorites, regardless of her political or religious leanings. Since her influence was oppressed by the Howards and Car, she turned to Robert Sidney, George Carew, Earl of Pembroke. Thus, the queen was not the head of any of the court groups, but joined them depending on the degree to which her interests were respected, so one cannot speak of the queen’s entourage as an organized force in opposition to James.

1.2 Queen's court patronage

But if the choice of persons is limited, and Anna joins various groups depending on her interests, then in this case it is necessary to consider her court patronage, to what extent and in relation to which persons it was really effective.

As already mentioned, the queen, trying to cope with the power of the Howards, relies on the numerous connections of her favorite Lady Bedford and brings Robert Sidney, George Carew, the Earl of Pembroke, etc. closer to her. Thus, an attempt is made to exert the opposite effect: Anna tries to maintain (or gain) influence on Yakov, promoting his own people.

Moreover, Sydney can be called one of Anna's favorites. In addition to the position of chamberlain, he was the chief inspector of her revenues (surveyor-general of herrevenues), the manager of her estates in Kent, and a member of her council.

The situation with George Carew, who was initially sharply denied the position, is interesting. But then the queen’s patronage helped him take a number of government posts and speed up the process of obtaining the baronial title in 1605.

It is unknown how valid this policy was and what results it led to. Perhaps the illusion of Anna's power over the choice of her husband's favorites, which was subsequently created, was a response to it.

However, if she could promote people already close to Yakov with great success, then in relation to those initially undesirable she, as we see, often failed. There are two clear confirmations of this: the fates of Arabella Stewart and Sir Walter Raleigh.

It is known that Anna, like her son, admired Raleigh’s many talents, corresponded with him and patronized him. She trusted him so much that during her son’s illness she sent him for medicine. And despite the fact that Prince Henry died, she did not deprive him of her favor and interceded for his release, and encouraged his idea of ​​\u200b\u200ban expedition to Guiana (she was even going to visit his ship). And after the failure of the expedition, she became one of his zealous defenders, even writing a letter to Buckingham about this. But in such an important matter, which could bring with it foreign policy complications, Anna’s opinion was no longer listened to.

Arabella Stewart, being placed in the queen's retinue out of necessity, becomes very close to her. From the very first days, she sings Anna’s praises, sometimes making caustic remarks towards Yakov. The dislike was mutual, despite such a close relationship, the king had a negative attitude towards anyone who could prevent him from taking the English throne. And her such rapid approach to Anna could have been one of the latter’s forms of protest, often used in the Scottish period, which somewhat interfered with Jacob’s well-functioning control and use of his wife’s retinue. And in the story of the wedding of Arabella and William Seymour, Anna, of course, supported her. We have many letters written by Lady Stuart to the queen herself and her favorite Jane Drumond with requests, hopes and confidence that she will certainly be helped. And Anna actually conveyed her petitions to the king several times, asked for her, but in reality she turned out to be not as strong as her ward had hoped. Although it should be noted that in order to oppose Jacob in such a dynastic issue, it was necessary to have a certain amount of courage or to strongly believe that you have great power. In the problem of her influence on advancements at court, the question of her role in the emergence of new favorites, of course, arises. In early biographies there is such a point of view that Jacob created the illusion of her enormous influence in this area in order to give her a feeling of great power over him and thereby prevent possible outbursts of indignation, which modern authors generally agree with. Lewalski points out that Archbishop Abbott involved Anne in the conspiracy against Somerset, as this was allowed by James, who did not want a repetition of their enmity, but with Villiers. And, in principle, Anna’s permission to appoint the latter to the position of cupbearer was very symbolic.

Therefore, it cannot be considered that Anna succeeded in such types of struggle as household, appointments and political intrigues. Her influence here was extremely low, limited and often an illusion, bringing the necessary balance and harmony to court life.

1.3 Personal relationships

Anna, in fact, was never a very close person to Yakov. In his treatise, The Royal Gift, Jacob gives the following parameters necessary for a royal bride. He gives three reasons for marriage: curbing lust, having children, and finding a helper in a wife. From this he draws the following conclusions. Firstly, the king should under no circumstances marry a barren woman, since heirs are his responsibility not only as a man, but also as a king. Secondly, you cannot marry a woman with a bad character and a vicious upbringing, since the wife should become a support, not a hindrance. Thirdly, you need to marry a woman belonging to the same church, because, with different faiths, the spouses will never become partners, and their differences will not only be copied by their subjects, splitting the country, but will also affect the worldview of their children. Yakov is skeptical about the possibility of remaking faith. Yakov considers beauty, wealth, and friendship between spouses as secondary but important conditions for marriage.

Anna was beautiful, brought Jacob a good dowry, and her origins did not disappoint. But with all this, the period of love, undoubtedly present in their relationship, when Yakov, still unfamiliar with his bride, personally came to Denmark for her, so as not to delay the long-awaited wedding due to the storm, ended quite quickly. It is difficult to say what influenced this more: the king’s penchant for male favorites or the unexpectedly decisive character of his wife. Anna did not become the support for him that, in his opinion, a wife should have become. The fact that he successfully used her character to create a balance of power at court does not exclude the fact that on a personal level this brought him some disappointment in the image of an ideal wife he had created. In a letter he writes to the queen after her unsuccessful attempt to take Henry in his absence, James writes that he married her because of her noble birth, but the love and respect he now has for her is only because she is his legal wife, who must be like him and not succumb to erroneous prejudices that those who are devoted to him are her enemies and that he always preferred her to everyone. For him, Anna is first and foremost a queen, so involved in power that she must be more careful in her behavior, since it leaves a mark on the image of Jacob. The letter to his wife is more reminiscent of the text of his own treatise, rather than an address to a loved one. Undoubtedly, their relationship was also reflected in Anna’s passion for Catholicism.

Thus, an analysis of the environment of Anne of Denmark and her patronage gives an idea of ​​how real the court opposition of the queen was, and what was the place of her court in the system of relations created by James.

The study of the composition of her retinue reveals a number of important points. So, we see that in Anna’s circle, unlike her husband, the British predominate. And Jacob not only took the initiative in such a situation, but for the most part he himself allocated places at his wife’s court, as shown by the selected groups in her environment, which owe their position to the king. This proves not only the determining influence of James in this matter and the largely impotent resistance of Anne, but also that her court played an important role in the king's court politics, both satisfying the supporters of James, providing them with places, and being an English counterweight to a sufficient extent to the Scottish entourage of the king himself. The selected group of “controlled” also indicates one of the functions of the queen’s court necessary for her husband. This feature of Anna’s patronage as the promotion of persons already nominated by Jacob is not only an attempt by Anna to somehow maneuver between various groups, trying to gain influence over her husband, but can also be considered as a unique way of creating relative balance between the mentioned groups. And in this sense, the idea of ​​the queen’s court as a kind of opposition to Jacob was quite beneficial. And such an idea was really created, which proves that Anna was often approached as an intermediary in relations with her husband. And although her patronage was shown to be of little importance, it was the presence of opposition that was important. From the same point of view, one can look at the illusion of Anna's great influence on the choice of royal favorites. And perhaps that is why Yakov did not interfere with the development of his wife’s cultural patronage, because, without causing real harm, he formed the necessary image of their relationship.

Thus, the question posed can be answered in two ways. On the one hand, her frequent resistance to appointments, patronage of many disliked by Yakov, and finally, cultural patronage allow us to say that opposition, to a certain extent, was actually present in reality. On the other hand, we see that she can be considered rather an illusion created for the necessary balance of power, and her court, as in the previous period, is an organic part of Jacob’s court with its own functions and tasks.

If we evaluate Anna’s personality based on the presented material, we can highlight the following points. Given the limited possibilities, the fact that her environment and herself were a necessary and organic part of Jacob's policy should not, apparently, cause a negative characterization.

At the same time, it is of course important that a certain amount of Anna’s independence remained, without having a subversive and scandalous connotation, and also demonstrating the rather strong-willed and decisive character of the queen, perhaps simply not so experienced in diplomacy and intrigue. This independence, expressed in the aforementioned cultural patronage, led to the rise of art and the possibility of development within its circle of many outstanding cultural figures of this era.

As for personal relationships, with the exception of a short period of falling in love, it is difficult to call their relationship close. Anna meant much more to Jacob as his queen and wife than as his lover.

2. Yakov and sons

2.1 Prince Henry and the “Royal Gift”: raising an heir

Unfortunately, the correspondence we have between Henry and Jacob is not large enough to cover in detail the history of the relationship between them. It is difficult to say how frequent the meetings between father and son were before James assumed the English throne. Henry was raised from infancy under the protection of the Earl of Mar. This was a Scottish tradition, justified by the rather tense political situation in the country: thus the heir was isolated from the influence of numerous political groups. In a letter written on the occasion of James's departure to England in 1603, the king apologizes to his son, since due to the importance of the event and the inevitable rush, he would not have time to see him before leaving. But he promises that this will be compensated by their quick meeting and a long time together. In the letter that Thomas Birch retells in his biography, Henry writes that he cannot be offended, but only congratulate his father on such a wonderful conclusion to events. The fact that he is still saddened by his father’s departure, and that they apparently met quite often, we also read in a letter to Anna of Denmark, in which, inviting his mother to see him, Henry argues that in connection with his departure his father will now be deprived of the pleasure of their frequent meetings.

All of James' letters contain an element of instruction. The king was very attentive to the education of the future heir to the throne and carefully controlled it. Adam Newton, whose strengths were foreign languages ​​and brilliant Latin style, was appointed the prince's tutor when he was 5 years old. Concern for the prince's education included both concern for the correct style of writing and the correct, from Jacob's point of view, position of the prince on a particular issue.

So in the letter that Jacob writes on the eve of his departure, he describes a whole pattern of behavior that Henry must adhere to in connection with his father receiving the English throne. Firstly, he should perceive this rather not as an increase in his own position, which, in fact, remained the same - crown prince, and therefore feel excessive pride and vanity about this, but as a significant increase in his responsibilities. He should never be overly arrogant. And especially carefully, the prince must pay attention to how he now selects his surroundings. The main thing that he should be guided by in this matter is his good origin and the opinion of his father (here in the letter, Yakov recommends a valuable person who can be used in the most “domestic” matters). The prince should also show great caution in relation to the English: he should behave with all of them as beloved subjects, avoid excessive ceremony so that they do not feel like strangers, treat with all the cordiality that they deserve at the moment (here not quite it is clear what Jacob means: the difficult time after the death of Elizabeth, or the general disposition towards the English nation after its correct “choice” regarding the new monarch).

Jacob immediately mentions that, along with the letter, he is sending his son his recently published book, which the heir should study as carefully as possible. Jacob notes that all the situations that Henry will have to face are addressed in one way or another in this book, which from now on should become a measure of truth for the heir, not only in assessing certain problems, but also in assessing the various advice that is given to him. Of course we are talking about the “Royal Gift”.

In another letter, Yakov gives two pieces of advice with which, he believes, the heir will cope with any task assigned to him. The first is unwavering faith in one’s own strength and casting aside childhood shyness, for fate helps the brave and rejects the timid. The second is to do exactly what you are doing at the moment.

However, we also need to dwell on the question of to whom these two letters from the king were addressed more. The fact is that at the time of their writing the prince was only 9 years old. Despite numerous indications of development ahead of age, it cannot be argued that Jacob’s advice applied directly to his heir. So in one of these letters we come across a passage where Yakov writes that he is looking forward to a letter, actually from his son: which will not only be written in his handwriting. In another letter, speaking about the correct selection of the environment, Yakov writes that the heir will be informed about the assessment given by his father: there is no doubt through whom this information will come. Thus, this correspondence can be considered rather a kind of exchange between the prince’s mentors, in order to demonstrate the knowledge he had acquired, and the king, who noted successes and achievements and set the further direction of the educational process. Moreover, this concerned not only the actual intellectual achievements of the young heir to the throne, but also his correct position on various issues, or rather the correct position of his mentors.

In this light, advice regarding the behavior of the heir with his environment will become more understandable. Of course, a nine-year-old boy, even properly brought up, could not correctly position himself in the more difficult circumstances caused by his father's new position. His circle of contacts had previously been quite limited, and with its current increase, taking into account the inclusion of the British, it was necessary to develop a general line of behavior for the heir, which would at the same time correspond to the interests of his father and would allow Henry and his mentors to maneuver quite carefully in numerous court groupings. This line was following Jacob’s instructions in selecting candidates for the prince’s inner circle and the heir’s absolutely loyal attitude towards all representatives of the English nation, without exception. Both were a reflection of James's original policy after inheriting the English throne.

As in the case of Anne of Denmark, the prince's entourage was completely formed by the king, which was facilitated by the young age of the heir. This allowed Jacob to pursue a further fairly flexible policy regarding the shuffling of the inner circle of the royal family.

The cautious position of the monarch, who sought to strengthen his position in the new state and in no way offend his new subjects, was carried out not only through the environment of the queen, who, as we see, actively opposed the policies of her husband, but also through the heir to the throne, whose actions were much more controllable easier.

Considering from this point of view, the advice that Yakov addressed to his son, we can see a unique educational concept embedded in them. As for the first advice, this can be considered as an instruction from the king to place greater independence and decisiveness in the actions of the heir. The time had come when it was time to cast aside youthful timidity. The young man had to be taught by his teachers to think and act independently. This idea is confirmed by the king’s desire, mentioned in the same letter, to receive a letter from his son himself: which is not only written in his handwriting, but will also be the fruit of his own thoughts. The second piece of advice talks about teaching the heir to be attentive when solving a specific issue, to be completely focused on the problem posed to the front.

The fact that the heir is already at the stage when he must learn to navigate on his own is confirmed by Jacob’s wish that he begin studying the “Royal Gift” (it was written by the king several years earlier). His training in independence, however, does not exclude the king’s control over the way of thinking and the position of his heir, since he considers it necessary that the prince initially fully rely on his father’s judgments and, depending on them, build his system of perception of the world around him. “The Royal Gift” is, in fact, a textbook on the art of statecraft for the future king. By genre, it belongs to the group of “mirrors” and “instructions” to sovereigns, which spread in Europe from the 15th century. Since this work was originally intended for one reader, the heir to the throne, it will be interesting to consider its main provisions in the light of Henry’s relationship with his father.

What is unique is that such a work was written by a monarch in principle. The personality of Jacob undoubtedly had an influence here, leaving us a very significant literary heritage. The work itself is divided into dedication, the first part is about the duties of the monarch as a Christian, the second is about governing the state, the third is about the behavior of the monarch in certain situations.

Jacob himself writes about the motives for writing this work that as a father he considers it obligatory to take care of the education of his son, and as a king to ensure that he receives sufficient training in all aspects of the activities of the monarch. He encourages Henry to take this work with him everywhere, study it carefully and put it into practice. Since Yakov cannot be with his son all the time, he hopes that this book will become his best adviser, free from flattery. If the heir does not listen to the parent’s advice, then Yakov writes that he would rather not have children at all than be the father of a weak child.

We see that Yakov was fully aware that under the conditions of government, it was impossible for him to take personal part in the upbringing of his son. But, as we observe both in his letters and in the preface, he did not at all let this issue take its course, but took an active part in it, albeit in a peculiar form. It is Yakov who plays the leading role in the process of raising the heir, and he strives for his son to trust and respect the opinion of his father as much as possible. Moreover, Yakov strives for the heir not only to receive a good theoretical education, but also to have support in his practice in the form of real experience and an exemplary pattern of behavior. Of course, the desire to earn the approval of the reigning parent should have been one of the important incentives for the heir, which Jacob uses, however, he softens the harsh statement about his reluctance to be the father of the weak, emphasizing that he believes in his son, since since the Lord gave him a son-heir , then he will make sure that he turns out to be worthy.

In “The Royal Gift,” Jacob speaks several times about the birth of his first son as a Divine gift. For him, Henry is, first of all, an heir (of course, the general orientation of the work must also be taken into account here). In his advice, he recommends that Henry treat his future son this way: he needs to be loved, but at the same time try to invest in him as much as his age allows. This is what he put into practice. In a biography dedicated to Charles I, the researcher notes that it was much easier for Jacob to become a mentor to his children, in which he succeeded quite well, than as their father, in which he frankly failed. Moreover, the best form for him was remote care. Many derive this attitude of Jacob towards his own children from his own difficult childhood, in which he was deprived of communication with his parents: the death of his father before his birth and the imprisonment of his mother suggested the king's cool relationship with his own family. From this point of view, “The Royal Gift” is a rather valuable source for us, since this work was the plane where Jacob actually showed participation and care for his children, in this case, Henry.

The topic of relationships with parents is depicted in this way in the treatise. Yakov views insulting his parents as one of those crimes that cannot be forgiven. This not only disrupts relationships with them, it makes children doubt. But, according to Jacob, those who betrayed and hated your ancestors cannot be loyal and love. In general, the passage about respect for parents is quite dry. In addition to the example of young Scottish lords who begin their independent lives by breaking up with their mother, we have before us the standard expression for this genre “honor your father and mother.”

What is Jacob trying to teach his heir? His first desire is to instill a sense of responsibility in Henry. He should not perceive his position as pleasure, he should not enjoy his superiority over others. Throughout the entire work, Jacob emphasizes that being a monarch is a daily work, a weight on the shoulders, that a high position only increases the number of responsibilities and the degree of guilt for misdeeds.. He gives a brief overview of the state of Scotland and the duties of the monarch in relation to his subjects. The king especially emphasizes the importance of education for the king and gives advice to the heir on how to control his own education. In all parts, Jacob pays special attention to the behavior of the monarch, since he is an example for many. In the first part, speaking about sins, the king indicates that every minor sin of his will be copied by his subjects, for which he will be held accountable before God. In the second part, Yakov several times focuses on the importance of control over his immediate environment, as an example of behavior for the entire country. The third part is entirely devoted to how to behave in a given situation, and Yakov also pays attention to such little things as correct speech, beautiful writing style, and the right choice of clothing. An interesting moment is where we see the monarch’s obvious desire to introduce Henry to his own hobby, namely writing. Yakov writes that it is better to write in your native language, not to write in a large volume, as this can distract from more important matters, and always remember that what you write will forever remain a testament to your intelligence and character. We also see in the passage about hunting, which Yakov gives preference to any other sport.

Despite the fact that Jacob claims to be a review of the duties of the monarch, this review is closely connected with the personality of the king and openly imposes his line of behavior on his successor. Thus, in the passage about the overly independent and barbaric Scottish aristocracy, Jacob considers the main thing for Henry to diligently fulfill his laws in relation to them.

He doesn’t shy away from marriage either. He considers it necessary to maintain purity before marriage, since one cannot demand from one what one does not observe oneself. Jacob advises his heir to avoid premarital affairs, despite the fact that they are now considered a minor sin. Treason is dangerous not only for the relationship between spouses, but also as a violation of the vow made at the altar, since it can produce illegitimate offspring, which in the future can greatly complicate the life of the legal heirs, but doom them to the absence of the latter.

He gives three reasons for marriage: curbing lust, having children, and finding a helper in a wife. From this he draws the following conclusions: Firstly, the king should under no circumstances marry a barren woman, since heirs are his responsibility not only as a man, but also as a king. Secondly, you cannot marry a woman with a bad character and a vicious upbringing, since the wife should become a support, not a hindrance. Thirdly, you need to marry a woman belonging to the same church, because, with different faiths, the spouses will never become partners, and their differences will not only be copied by their subjects, splitting the country, but will also affect the worldview of their children. Yakov is skeptical about the possibility of remaking faith. The king regretfully admits that there are few such princesses. You cannot marry (especially for the first time) a woman of lower status. Yakov considers beauty, wealth, and friendship between spouses as secondary but important conditions for marriage.

Thus, the choice of a future wife for his son is a very important issue for Jacob. This passage turned out to be not only a theoretical hypothesis, but also a serious problem when it turned out that there really weren’t many princesses suitable for the heir to the English throne from the point of view of his father. Moreover, despite the fact that in the treatise Jacob writes about the undesirability of early marriage and that he writes these instructions more in case of his death, he still strives to marry Henry while he is alive, and to take the most active part in the choice, since the son is still Still, in comparison with him, he is not sufficiently versed in this matter. It should be noted that the opinions of the ardent Protestant Henry on the issue of marriage with the Spanish princess James were not greatly taken into account. And although he clearly contradicted his own words about the need for religious compatibility, the desire to independently solve such an important problem forced Yakov to neglect such an important condition.

Jacob’s authoritarianism is visible not only in the matter of choosing his son’s bride, but also in the matter of forming his entourage. A significant part of the treatise is also devoted to this. Jacob literally sets the principles of creation and relations with the immediate circle of the heir to the throne, not to mention the fact that he actually organizes it in practice for quite a long time. On the one hand, Yakov gives truly verified and wise advice on this issue. He diligently emphasizes that the prince’s entourage will be his image in the eyes of the people, and therefore he must be selected very carefully so as not to compromise himself. Recommends that people be more careful about recruiting through intermediaries, so that it doesn’t turn out that they are serving them and not him. Also about the need to monitor the courtyard much more than the entire kingdom, since it is a model and an example. But on the other hand, as in the letters, we see a desire for control over the heir to the throne. Jacob especially emphasizes that Henry, after his death, should be very attentive to his former comrades. Yakov believes that for the heir they should become the most trusted persons. This, in his opinion, will not only provide Henry with the best servants, since those who did not love their father cannot love their son, but will also demonstrate filial respect for Jacob and will be proof of his love for his father. Under no circumstances should Henry return those who were disgraced under James. We literally encounter here the following phrase: “you must love those whom I love and hate those whom I hate.”

Thus, we see that Yakov seeks to completely control all the most important moments of his son’s life.

There is one more issue that needs to be noted when considering the relationship between Jacob and his eldest son. This is Jacob's bias towards the growing popularity of his heir. Hume notes that historians speak of Prince Henry with special affection, and this is indeed so. The same Hume writes that already at the age of eighteen, the young prince inspired more respect than his father, for all his experience, solidity and learning. He was not interested in empty amusements, and his greatest hobby was the art of war. Hume also says that Henry most likely despised his father for excessive cowardice and pedantry.

The biography of Arabella Stewart also notes the king's excessive sensitivity to the people's love for their heir. Just like in the biography of Charles, there is a brewing conflict between Jacob and his heir over the latter’s excessive independence and insolence. The author describes a hunting incident when the heir, in response to his father’s caustic comment, left the event, pulling the lion’s share of those present. Also commenting on Karl’s relationship with his father, he notes that he found his father in bad times, when he decided that he had dealt with all the problems and having received the reward for his work - the English throne, he could finally rest. This thesis can also be applied to the eldest son’s relationship with Jacob. Although Henry did not witness the flourishing of favoritism under Carr and Buckingham, his father's behavior and court were still very different from the one he depicted in the Royal Gift.

This kind of tension did occur in their relationship, but it should not be greatly exaggerated. This perception of their relationship is largely based both on the prevailing opinion of Jacob, as a weak man and monarch, and on the image of the prince idealized by historians. In reality, Henry's independence had in many ways the same basis as the illusory independence of his mother under the real control of Jacob.

As for Henry’s relationship with Anna of Denmark, one must take into account that before moving to England, their meetings, like those with Jacob, were quite rare. Until the age of 5 or 6, the prince was under the guardianship of the Dowager Countess Mar, whom he later recalled with tenderness. The mother’s attempts to get involved in raising her son led nowhere (see chapter Anna). However, even after arriving in England, their relationship did not become closer. This was partly hindered by the religious factor: Anna’s passion for Catholicism was no longer a special secret, and strongly contradicted the sharply Protestant views of the heir. As with Jacob, the prince broke up with her over the issue of marriage with a Catholic princess, which the queen passionately dreamed of. However, after the death of her son, Anna demonstratively mourned, using this as an excuse not to attend a number of events related to the wedding of her daughter and the Elector of the Palatinate.

Thus, we see that the most striking dominant feature in relation to Jacob and Henry is the king’s desire to keep his heir under control at all costs. Yakov pays the greatest attention to the education of his eldest son, trying to establish the worldview and model of behavior he needs, a prime example of which is the “Tsar’s Gift.” This does not exclude, as already mentioned, Yakov’s sincere concern as a father for a good education for his son. But first of all, Henry is perceived by him as the heir to the throne, and it is this function that carries the deepest emotional load for Jacob. The king was not capable of a closer relationship with his son; for him, remote care was the maximum

2.2 Carl

Compared to his younger brother, Henry saw his parents regularly. Born in 1600, Charles, at whose birth the king was not present, was an incredibly weak child. He was immediately entrusted to the care of Lady Margaret Stewart, Jane Drummond and Marion Hepburn. The little prince's nannies received generous support from Jacob, but during this period his care for his second son was limited to this. Due to poor health, at first no one believed that the child could survive. When James went to England in 1603, Charles remained in Scotland, and it was decided that he would follow his parents as soon as he was strong enough to do so. Before leaving, Alexander Seton was appointed his tutor. It cannot be said that parents forgot about their youngest child. They were constantly interested in his health. In 1604, Jacob sent a doctor to Scotland, who examined the child and allowed him to move to England. In the same year, Charles was brought to England, and his care was entrusted to Robert and Elizabeth Currie. Due to the boy's still poor health, this was considered a rather dubious honor, but the Carries successfully completed their task. As the researcher notes in Karl's biography, they gave Karl what the boy so lacked during this period - a family. Indeed, as in the case of Henry, they note that Karl has a much stronger attachment to his teacher than to his mother.

The relationship with my mother was quite difficult. Anna really had a hard time establishing contact with her children: with her relationships with Henry and Elizabeth completely damaged (in both cases, Anna’s commitment to Catholicism played a big role), Karl began to be considered her favorite. Carlton notes that the lack of maternal attention afterward greatly affected the prince's relationships with women. However, in a letter written by Karl during his mother’s illness, he writes that this event deprived him of the opportunity to see her and he would like to give her some kind of recipe that would help her heal or at least make her laugh. In 1619, when Anna was dying, it was Charles who slept in the room next to her.

Carlton introduces the following concept regarding the duality of Carl and his father's relationship. The fact is that Karl found Jacob by no means in the latter’s most brilliant years. During this period, the king, who had finally received the long-awaited English throne, relaxed, considering his duty fulfilled, and finally decided to live for his own pleasure, especially since, as he believed, the English treasury allowed it. The dominance of favorites, constant entertainment and luxury of the court created in Charles the impression of his father as a weak monarch, whose way of life was not at all sympathetic to him. This alienation was also facilitated by the behavior of Yakov himself, who, as mentioned above, did not at all strive for close communication with his children. With all this, Carlton also notes the opposite trend in their relationship - this is Charles’s desire to win the sympathy of his father, whom he, despite the contempt he felt for his way of life, considered the best king and father.

The idea that Karl disliked his father’s lifestyle is also supported by Young, pointing out that Karl tried to do exactly the opposite: if under Jacob he clearly preferred favorites to the family, then Karl sought to create an ideal marriage if Jacob was emotional and sociable , then Karl is secretive and silent.

In general, in assessing Karl’s childhood and youth, the prevailing idea is of him as an unhappy child, closed in the shadow of his own brother, deprived of parental attention.

Carlton believes that Karl’s letters clearly show attempts to “buy” parental warmth and affection. He repeatedly writes to his father in Latin, trying to demonstrate the efforts he is making to study the language so beloved by Jacob. He constantly notifies his father of his progress in learning, which, as mentioned above, was also very much appreciated by the monarch. However, if we compare his behavior with the behavior of the king's eldest son, it cannot be said that it was very different and that there was something special about it. Jacob demanded that his children write to him in Latin in order to control the learning process: so Henry had to write obligatory letters to him from the age of 5. So such letters-reports about the learning process cannot be considered in Karl’s case as some kind of distinctive feature of him that somehow distinguished his relationship with his father. The desire to gain parental approval is natural, and Yakov, as already mentioned in his treatise, believed that the need to earn his father's attention should become one of the additional motives for his son's desire to study. This statement, of course, did not apply only to Henry. Therefore, it is impossible to completely agree with the author about Karl’s lack of attention from his father. This was the king's already described position in relation to the upbringing of his children: an increased emphasis on education, and a studious avoidance of closer personal contacts.

A separate stage in Charles’s relationship with Jacob was the time after Buckingham’s ascension. The death of Prince Henry did not change much in the relationship between father and son - they remained distant. Charles's general unsociability and cold attitude towards his father's court, and the dominance of favorites in his father's life, did not contribute to any improvement. Under Somerset, Charles was almost completely excluded from the king's inner circle. Changes occurred only under Buckingham and were associated with a number of reasons relating not so much to Charles and Jacob themselves, but to the plans of the favorite. At first, he also did not seek to attract a young heir, but Jacob was getting old, and Buckingham’s plans did not include losing influence under the next king. He gradually begins to draw Jacob into Karl's relationship. He was rather cool about his father’s obviously romantic relationship with Buckingham, but according to Young, during the period when Charles began to be drawn into this circle, such relations between Jacob and Buckingham gradually faded away due to the king’s old age and the marriage of his favorite. This, in his opinion, helped Karl psychologically accept this situation. Carlton believes that Karl quite consciously accepted the role of second violin in this trio, realizing that he could not compete with the favorite for his father's attention, and soon firmly took such a position in their relationship, which can be characterized by addressing him, which he constantly used in relation to Jacob in his correspondence with him and Buckingham - “Baby Charles”. This idea is confirmed in the Spanish correspondence of Jacob with Charles and Buckingham. Karl, even when the letters seem to be addressed to the heir, he clearly remains somewhere in the background. All of Yakov’s emotions fall to the share of Backingegm, while Karl receives mainly instructions on behavior (which again draws parallels with Henry). It cannot be said that Jacob does not have any special feelings for his son, who is in a rather dangerous situation for that time; no, he was worried about Karl, but his anxiety, as with Henry, is more about the fear of losing an heir, rather than a loved one.

Charles's relationship with Buckingham is usually assessed as fraternal. Many are surprised how he, who was so hostile to his father’s lifestyle, was able to keep his all-powerful favorite with him. It was greatly influenced by the fact that Buckingham, in principle, was one of the first to show interest in him. Karl's failed attempts to get closer to Henry also had a strong impact. It must be said that not only the relationship between Yakov himself and his household, but also between them themselves was quite complex. Many people note Henry's dislike for Karl, whom he constantly teased. So Carlton believes that Jacob used his younger son to rein in his elder, pointing out Karl’s diligence, and once even promising to leave the crown to the latter. No matter how unrealistic this threat may be. This hardly contributed to the improvement of relations between the brothers. There is a well-known anecdote when, while waiting for the king, Henry took the headdress from Archbishop Abbott, put it on nine-year-old Charles and said that when he becomes king, he will make him Archbishop of Canterbury, since he studies a lot for this, and besides, long clothes will hide his crooked painful legs. Karl was so upset that he took off his clothes, stamped his feet and ran away in tears. Karl repeatedly tried to establish contact with his brother. Carlton writes that here too he tried in some way to buy his attention. Moreover, in his attempts, the inexperienced Karl often went too far - so when Henry and his entourage refused to change French fashion to Italian, Karl did the same. But despite all his attempts, Henry did not have the patience to communicate with his younger brother, he clearly preferred the company of his sister Elizabeth. However, Carleton, despite such clearly strained relations, points out that Karl took Henry’s death very hard.

Thus, it is necessary to note the following features of Jacob’s relationship with his youngest son. First of all, they were distinguished by Charles’s actual position by birth: he was not an heir, and, therefore, was not as important a figure for Jacob as Henry. The second is the prince’s poor health, which both reduced communication with his parents at first and initially influenced his image of a closed and weak being. In terms of education, he apparently received the same amount of attention as Henry, but in terms of personal relationships, he also did not advance beyond that, at least not until Buckingham appeared. In the last period of Jacob's reign, under the influence of his favorite, Karl became a little closer to his father, and took his special position between his father and his favorite, or rather next to them.

Anna Danish Jacob entourage

3.1 The sensual side of correspondence

The first aspect of the correspondence that I would like to consider is the sensual side of their relationship. How did Yakov feel about his favorite, how strong was this feeling, how intimate was the side of their relationship reflected in the letters? The most active correspondence between them was conducted during the Duke of Buckingham's stay in Spain. Yakov takes the absence of his favorite extremely hard. The general tone of the poem he wrote during this period strongly resonates with the correspondence: the birds do not sing, the fountains have died down, the trees do not bloom, spring itself has slowed down until the happy return of two people close to him.

The same melancholy that permeates these lines also creeps into the letters. Never before had they been separated for such a long period of time. Already in the second letter, Jacob asks his son to hurry up and return Buckingham to him as soon as possible. And in the next he writes that he carries a portrait of his favorite near his heart. The correspondence is unusually intense: after eleven days of no letters, Yakov is already beginning to worry about his “boys.” He himself writes to them regularly, both to both and separately to each. The feeling of melancholy is also enhanced by fear, since Buckingham and Karl undertook a truly unusual and dangerous adventure for those times. This is what the king writes in one of his letters to the Duke:

“My dear and dear child, I am such a miserable coward, because I do nothing but cry and mourn; I went to the park today, but I didn’t talk to anyone, and tears flowed down my cheeks just like now, which I write with difficulty... and my heart is against your absence.”

“My dear child, I cannot be satisfied without sending you a gift, and I pray to God that he will send you and me a joyful and pleasant meeting, and that we may enter into a new marriage this Christmas, since the Lord loves me so much that I I want to live in this world only for you, and I prefer the life of an exile with you in any part of the earth, sad life widower without you. May God bless you, my dear child and wife, and may you always be a comfort to your dear father and husband."

After the trip, Buckingham falls ill and Jacob is again separated from his pet. In the first letter, having received the news about the impossibility of the favorite’s presence at the hunt, he writes about how concerned he is about Buckingham’s health, advises him to be careful with medicines and doctors, and also expresses the hope that he will recover tomorrow evening. and will be able to attend the hunt. Jacob emphasizes that without Buckingham, hunting will not give him real pleasure. In the next letter, after admiring the brilliant behavior of the pack of dogs Buckingham gave him, Jacob again expresses concern for his health and advises: “Don’t forget to breathe now.” fresh air be careful, and for God's sake and mine, keep yourself warm, especially your head and shoulders." . At the end of the letter, he adds that Buckingham’s “old supplier” is sending him 6 partridges and two hares and is going to send him a pheasant (and later, judging by Jacob’s letters, similar gifts are repeated more than once). The next letter is written by Prince Charles under the dictation of his father, since Jacob has pain in his right elbow and knee and is unable to write himself. At the end, Yakov again repeats his desire to see the favorite, whose presence will undoubtedly restore his health. The fact that Jacob was really very worried about separation from Buckingham and sincerely cared about his health can also be seen from the letter where the Duke speaks of Jacob’s broken promise to write little, since these numerous letters mean that Jacob is worried. Buckingham, in response to Yakov’s messages about his melancholy and unsuccessful hunt, writes that he is very pleased that Yakov is so important for his presence, which brings him good luck, and of course, for Yakov’s sake, he will try to recover as quickly as possible. He then sends a servant to attend Jacob's hunt and then return to him with a report. Thus, he is trying to at least in this way make up for his absence from the king’s side and establish more physical contact, so to speak, than the opportunity that correspondence provided.

3.3 Displaying status in correspondence

The next question that interests us is how they viewed them, if we can express a professional relationship. Here I would like to analyze not the actual issues that they discussed in this part, but namely, how they positioned and characterized themselves in them.

Another letter from Buckingham already emphasizes not so much diligence as Buckingham’s loyalty, who, in gratitude for his elevation, will always take the side of his condescending master. Thus, we have before us an ideal subject, faithful and obedient to the will of the monarch. It must be said that the Duke almost never forgot to emphasize this position of his subject, appreciating the mercy of the monarch, which is demonstrated to us by his signature “Your majesty"s humble slave and dog" and his constant request for blessing. Almost unchanged: in one of letters, Buckingham apologizes to the king for the fact that he really forgot to ask for his blessing in the last letter, and asks for a double despite the humorous tone, the constant presence of this element still speaks of a fairly serious attitude towards him in their correspondence (as Buckingham’s wife Kate in. In a letter to the king, she writes that she asks for a blessing, like her husband, but she writes on his behalf, however, in another letter of hers, where she writes on her own behalf, Jacob also attaches great importance to this moment of correspondence: no matter how small. his letter to his favorite ends almost invariably. This mutual exchange is similar to a constantly repeated oath, which consolidates the status, professional hypostasis of their relationship.

3.4 Family of the favorite in correspondence

One of the fairly frequently reflected themes in this part is the family of the Duke of Buckingham. It was large enough and, as many researchers agree, it received enough benefits from the rise of the favorite. This applies to the policy of distributing titles and positions, in which Buckingham had a primary influence on the king (1618 - his mother Lady Beaumont becomes Countess of Buckingham, 1616 - half-brother John becomes a knight, then a page of the Royal Bedchamber, keeper of the Royal Robe, then Baron Villiers of Stoke and Viscount Purbeck, 1617 - his younger brother Christopher became a gentleman of the royal bedchamber, in 1623 he simultaneously received the titles of Baron Villiers of Daventry and Earl of Oglesey (without prior knighting, as tradition required), in 1622 the husband of Susan's sister Sir William Fielding became Viscount Fielding, in 1622 Earl of Denbigh, their son first receives the title of Baron Fielding, and then Viscount Calan), and the arrangement of marriage parties for family members (Christopher, daughter of Thomas Selden, Lord Norries, John, daughter of Sir Edward Coke, etc.). Buckingham himself in 1620, on the recommendation of James, married Catherine Manners, daughter of the Earl of Rutland, a famous participant in the Essex conspiracy, who enjoyed the very stable trust of the king. What place does the favorite’s family occupy in his correspondence with the king, and what can we learn from there about Jacob’s attitude towards her?

· corresponded directly with Yakov

Thus, we have tried to analyze three themes highlighted in the letters of James I and the Duke of Buckingham. This is a love issue, the perception and role of correspondence, the Buckingham family, positioning in the “professional sphere”. How can we summarize the information that correspondence provides us?

On the question of Jacob's feelings towards Buckingham, she gives us an idea of ​​the latter's extraordinary importance for the king. Yakov sincerely loved his last favorite and at the end of his life he could no longer imagine life without him. It can be noted that this love was partly of a somewhat selfish nature on Jacob’s part. It is also impossible to exclude a note of patronage, which, however, is clearly not a manifestation of paternal feelings, but rather a reflection of both status and age differences. As for the question of the physical side of their relationship, here we can only judge hints about it. Of course, the unusually warm tone of the correspondence, Yakov’s impatient expectation evening meetings, tender addresses (“dear sweet child”, “sweet heart”), frank declarations of love, coupled with comments from contemporaries, do not allow one to deny its existence. However, to use Bergeron's terminology, James's letters do give us an idea of ​​"desire" but not of "reality." In this part, as has been shown, the letters lend themselves to very diverse, if not contrary, interpretations. Therefore, although it is worth paying attention to how Yakov himself wrote about his feelings, treat this with caution, taking into account all the variety of possible interpretations. If we return to the question of the perception of these relationships by contemporaries and researchers, then correspondence is a wonderful source for looking at these relationships not so much from a moral point of view, but rather to really try to understand the feelings experienced by the characters, to reveal the inner side of their relationship.

On the question of the meaning of the correspondence for both of its participants, we can partly agree with its symbolic interpretation. But only partly. On both sides there is indeed an opinion on the role of letters as a demonstration of royal favor, strengthening and constant confirmation of the status of the favorite. However, this correspondence function should not be taken into account. It frankly carries not only a symbolic, but also a sensual and partly professional orientation. In the latter, we see a clear emphasis by both participants in the correspondence (but more by the Duke of Buckingham) on the theme of loyalty, love and obedience to their monarch, a demonstrative indication of the status position of both and its consolidation. The favorite's family also occupies an important place in this correspondence. Its presence is partly due to the symbolic function of correspondence. But it is not possible to deny, as was indicated, its significance for Jacob in a sensory sense and to reduce everything only to rational explanations.

Conclusion

Based on the objectives set in the introduction, the following points can be highlighted.

The first chapter posed the following main questions: the existence of court opposition to Anne of Denmark and an analysis of Jacob's views on marriage.

Marriage for Jacob was his duty as a monarch. It was necessary to approach this issue at an adult age and with a certain set of parameters. First of all, he perceived his wife not as a lover, but as a queen and the mother of his heirs. He respected and loved Anna because she was his wife. It was this status that determined the nature of Jacob’s relationship with Anna of Denmark. That is why he was sincerely surprised when she accused him of preferring someone else to her. For him, she occupied a unique position, which no one but her could claim, as well as the feelings that he had for her. For Yakov, the relationship between friends and helpers came to the fore in the relationship between the spouses. The wife was supposed to become a support for him as a king. Of course, the question arises to what extent Anna met the requirements that Yakov made of his wife. She was never able to become a person truly close to Yakov, on the level that he allowed. Perhaps the reason for this was the character of the queen, who sought to play a slightly different role than the one that James assigned for his wife, both in personal relationships and in politics. As for Anna's court opposition, it was rather an illusion; more precisely, it took place only as an organic and controlled part of Jacob's polycentric court. Moreover, this was not so much opposition as providing living space for a certain group of courtiers, with opportunities to realize themselves accordingly in it.

We tried to analyze this level in the third chapter. In general, the leitmotif of the correspondence between Jacob and Buckingham is the sensual side of their relationship. Letters to Buckingham are filled with many confessions of Jacob's frank affection for his favorite, in which the king does not see anything special or shameful, and which are practically not found in his letters to his wife and children. As for the existence of the physical side of these relationships, here the correspondence can be subject to a variety of interpretations and it is quite difficult to take a principled position. Another important aspect of Jacob’s relationship with his favorite is the professional one, in which the Duke of Buckingham acts as the person closest to the monarch, being his representative and, accordingly, endowed with the greatest power. One should not miss Bray’s symbolic interpretation of correspondence as a constant reproduction of royal favor. In general, these two components of their relationship place Buckingham in a special, different position from others in his personal relationship with Jacob. Thus, if in the first two chapters we see a clear predominance of the status component, then in the third the leading one was, on the contrary, the sensual side. At the same time, it is not possible to contrast the king’s relationship with his family and with his favorite, since both were for Jacob an organic component of the monarch’s family circle.

Sources:

1. Letters of king James VI and I. California, London, 1984.

2. Letters of the Kings of England/ Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818

3. Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart/ Ed. Sara Jayne Steen. N-Y., 1994.

4. Original letters, illustrative of English history; including numerous royal letters; from autographs in the British Museum, and one or two other collections/ Ed. Henry, Sir Ellis, in 3 Vol., vol.3

5. The Political Works of James I./Ed. McIlwain C.H., Cambridge, 1918

Literature:

1. Aikin L. Memoirs of the court of King James the First 2 Vol. London, 1822

2. Birch, T. The life of Henry, prince of Wales, eldest son of King James I. L., 1760

3. Bray A. The Friend, University of ChicagoPress, 2003

4. Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. Routledge, 1995

5. FischlinD. Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I/ Writing King James's Sexuality/, Detroit, 2002, P. 344-371

6. Gristwood S. Arbella England’s lost queen. London., 2003

7. Hudson Shaw W. George Villiers first duke of Buckingham, Oxford, 1882

8. Lewalski B. Enacting Opposition: Queen Anne and Subversions of Masquing // Writing Women in Jacobean England. Cambridge, 1993.

9. Lockyer R. Tudor&Stuart Britain 1471-1714.London.1981

10. Miller J. The Stuarts Hambledon and London, 2004

11. Patterson W. R. King James VI and I and the reunion of Christendom. Cambridge., 2000.

12. Peck L. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England London, 1993

13. Wielson D. H. King James VI and I. London, 1956

14. Young M. B. Charles I, Basingstoke, U.K., 1997

15. England of the 17th century: ideology, politics, culture / Ed. S.E. Fedorova, St. Petersburg, 1992.

16. Zvereva G.I. History of Scotland. M., 1987.

17. Kovalev V. A. Royal ceremony of the early Stuarts. Abstract. Ph.D. St. Petersburg, 2006.

18. Fedorov S.E. “MakingHertheMaireWilful” Anna of Denmark and her court entourage (1590-1593) // Royal Court in political culture medieval Europe. Theory. Symbolism. Ceremonial. / Ed. ON THE. Khachaturian. M., 2004. pp. 114-133

19. Fedorov S.E. Early Stuart aristocracy. St. Petersburg, 2005.

20. Shtokmar V.V. History of England in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 2003

21. Etsina E. I. Ideological and political foundations of the early Stuart monarchy. Author's abstract. Ph.D., St. Petersburg, 2006

22. Hume D. England under the rule of the House of Stuart.// Transl. A.A. Vasiliev; Ed. S.E.Fedorov St. Petersburg, 2001

23. Dictionary of national biography/ Ed. by L.Stephen, 27 vol. London., 1888.

Letters of the Kings of England/Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818., pp. 159-160

“I have nothing more to say, but to reccomend my poor little wife and daughter to your care" / Ibid., P. 163-164

Bray Alan The Friend / University of Chicago Press, 2003, P. 13-42

Anna of Denmark(English) Anne of Denmark; October 14, 1574( 15741014 ) - March 4, 1619) - Queen Consort of England and Scotland, wife of King James I (VI).

Anna was the daughter of Frederick II, King of Denmark and Norway from the Oldenburg dynasty. In 1589, a treaty was concluded between Denmark and Scotland for the marriage of Princess Anne and the young Scottish king, James VI. The wedding by proxy took place in Copenhagen and the bride sailed to Scotland. However, due to storms in the North Sea, the ship was forced to return to Norway. The impatient groom equipped the Scottish fleet and arrived to Anna in Oslo, where the wedding took place on November 23. The newlyweds remained in the possessions of the Danish king until the spring of next year. On May 17, 1590, Anne was crowned Queen of Scots at Holyrood Abbey. The marriage of James VI to a representative of the Danish royal house, one of the leading Protestant dynasties in Europe, significantly strengthened the king's position in Presbyterian Scotland.

Anne of Denmark was a charming and cheerful girl, but in terms of intellectual level she could not match the philosopher king James VI. Soon after the marriage, relations between the spouses began to cool and in the end they almost stopped dating. Nevertheless, between 1594 and 1604, Anne of Denmark gave birth to seven children, of whom, however, only three escaped death in infancy: Princes Henry, Charles and Princess Elizabeth.

Anna's influence on the royal court was quite significant: thanks to her, courtly orders were established at the Scottish (and from 1603 English) court, balls and theatrical performances began to be frequently organized, poets and musicians were encouraged, the court acquired splendor and splendor. This displeased the Presbyterian clergy, who repeatedly criticized the queen for neglecting prayers and the word of God. The negative attitude intensified even more after Anna's conversion to Catholicism. Many talented administrators emerged from the Queen's retinue, who then successfully worked in the highest government bodies of England and Scotland.

Anne's residence was the Queens House palace built for her by Inigo Jones in Greenwich, which has survived. She died at the age of 44, in 1619, at Hampton Court Palace and was buried in Westminster Abbey.

See James I (King of England)

Categories: Personalities in alphabetical order, Died on March 2, Died on March 4, Born on October 14,

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

The biography of Arabella Stewart also notes the king's excessive sensitivity to the people's love for their heir. Gristwood S. Arbella England's lost queen. London., 2003 P. 348. Just like in the biography of Charles, there is a brewing conflict between Jacob and his heir over the latter’s excessive independence and insolence. The author describes a hunting incident when the heir responded in response to his father’s caustic comment, he left the event, dragging the lion’s share of those present Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. London, 1995 P. 14. Also commenting on Charles’s relationship with his father, he notes that he found his father in bad times, when he decided that he had dealt with all the problems and having received the reward for his work - the English throne, he could finally rest Ibid ., pp. 14-15. This thesis can also be applied to the eldest son’s relationship with Jacob. Although Henry did not witness the flourishing of favoritism under Carr and Buckingham, his father's behavior and court were still very different from the one he depicted in the Royal Gift.

This kind of tension did occur in their relationship, but it should not be greatly exaggerated. This perception of their relationship is largely based both on the prevailing opinion of Jacob, as a weak man and monarch, and on the image of the prince idealized by historians. In reality, Henry's independence had in many ways the same basis as the illusory independence of his mother under the real control of Jacob.

As for Henry’s relationship with Anna of Denmark, one must take into account that before moving to England, their meetings, like those with Jacob, were quite rare. Until the age of 5 or 6, the prince was under the tutelage of the Dowager Countess Mar, whom he later recalled with tenderness. Birch, T. The life of Henry, prince of Wales, eldest son of King James I. London, 1760, P. 14. The mother’s attempts to get involved in raising her son did not lead to anything (see chapter Anna). However, even after arriving in England, their relationship did not become closer. This was partly hindered by the religious factor: Anna’s passion for Catholicism was no longer a special secret, and strongly contradicted the sharply Protestant views of the heir. As with Jacob, the prince broke up with her over the issue of marriage with a Catholic princess, which the queen passionately dreamed of. However, after the death of her son, Anna demonstratively mourned, using this as an excuse not to attend a number of events related to the wedding of her daughter and the Elector of the Palatinate.

Thus, we see that the most striking dominant feature in relation to Jacob and Henry is the king’s desire to keep his heir under control at all costs. Yakov pays the greatest attention to the education of his eldest son, trying to establish the worldview and model of behavior he needs, a prime example of which is the “Tsar’s Gift.” This does not exclude, as already mentioned, Yakov’s sincere concern as a father for a good education for his son. But first of all, Henry is perceived by him as the heir to the throne, and it is this function that carries the deepest emotional load for Jacob. The king was not capable of a closer relationship with his son; for him, remote care was the maximum

2.2 Charles

Compared to his younger brother, Henry saw his parents regularly. Born in 1600, Charles, at whose birth the king was not present, was an incredibly weak child. He was immediately entrusted to the care of Lady Margaret Stewart, Jane Drummond and Marion Hepburn. The little prince's nannies received generous support from Jacob, but during this period his care for his second son was limited to this. Due to poor health, at first no one believed that the child could survive. When James went to England in 1603, Charles remained in Scotland, and it was decided that he would follow his parents as soon as he was strong enough to do so. Before leaving, Alexander Seton was appointed his tutor. It cannot be said that parents forgot about their youngest child. They were constantly interested in his health. In 1604, Jacob sent a doctor to Scotland, who examined the child and allowed him to move to England. In the same year, Charles was brought to England, and his care was entrusted to Robert and Elizabeth Currie. Due to the boy's still poor health, this was considered a rather dubious honor, but the Carries successfully completed their task. As the researcher notes in Karl's biography, they gave Karl what the boy so lacked during this period - a family. Indeed, as in the case of Henry, they note that Karl has a much stronger attachment to his teacher than to his mother.

The relationship with my mother was quite difficult. Anna really had a hard time establishing contact with her children: with her relationships with Henry and Elizabeth completely damaged (in both cases, Anna’s commitment to Catholicism played a big role), Karl began to be considered her favorite. Carlton notes that the lack of maternal attention afterward greatly affected the prince’s relationships with women Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. London, 1995 P. 3. However, in a letter written by Karl during his mother’s illness, he writes that this event deprived him of the opportunity to see her and he would like to give her some kind of recipe that would help her heal, or at least her made me laugh Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818 P. 118. In 1619, when Anne was dying, it was Charles who slept in the room next to her.

Carlton gives the following concept regarding the duality of the relationship between Carl and his father Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. London, 1995 P.16. The fact is that Karl found Jacob by no means in the latter’s most brilliant years. During this period, the king, who had finally received the long-awaited English throne, relaxed, considering his duty fulfilled, and finally decided to live for his own pleasure, especially since, as he believed, the English treasury allowed it. The dominance of favorites, constant entertainment and luxury of the court created in Charles the impression of his father as a weak monarch, whose way of life was not at all sympathetic to him. This alienation was also facilitated by the behavior of Yakov himself, who, as mentioned above, did not at all strive for close communication with his children. With all this, Carlton also notes the opposite trend in their relationship - this is Karl’s desire to win the sympathy of his father, whom he, despite the contempt he felt for his way of life, considered the best king and father Ibidem..

The idea that Karl disliked his father’s lifestyle is also supported by Young, pointing out that Karl tried to do exactly the opposite: if under Jacob he clearly preferred favorites to the family, then Karl sought to create an ideal marriage if Jacob was emotional and sociable , then Karl is secretive and silent Young M. B. Charles I, Basingstoke, UK, 1997, P. 14.

In general, in assessing Karl’s childhood and youth, the prevailing idea is of him as an unhappy child, closed in the shadow of his own brother, deprived of parental attention.

Carlton believes that Karl’s letters clearly show attempts to “buy” parental warmth and affection. He repeatedly writes to his father in Latin, trying to demonstrate the efforts he is making to study the language so beloved by Jacob. He constantly notifies his father of his successes in training, which, as mentioned above, was also very much appreciated by the monarch. Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. Routledge, 1995 P. 13-14. However, if we compare his behavior with the behavior of the king's eldest son, it cannot be said that it was very different and that there was something special about it. Jacob demanded that his children write to him in Latin in order to control the learning process: so Henry, from the age of 5, had to write him obligatory letters Kings in the making: the princes of Wales/ ed. by Elsie P.T-C.,N.Y., 1968, P. 125-126. So such letters-reports about the learning process cannot be considered in Karl’s case as some kind of distinctive feature of him that somehow distinguished his relationship with his father. The desire to gain parental approval is natural, and Yakov, as already mentioned in his treatise, believed that the need to earn his father's attention should become one of the additional motives for his son's desire to study. This statement, of course, did not apply only to Henry. Therefore, it is impossible to completely agree with the author about Karl’s lack of attention from his father. This was the king's already described position in relation to the upbringing of his children: an increased emphasis on education, and a studious avoidance of closer personal contacts.

A separate stage in Charles’s relationship with Jacob was the time after Buckingham’s ascension. The death of Prince Henry did not change much in the relationship between father and son - they remained distant. Charles's general unsociability and cold attitude towards his father's court, and the dominance of favorites in his father's life, did not contribute to any improvement. Under Somerset, Charles was almost completely excluded from the king's inner circle. Changes occurred only under Buckingham and were associated with a number of reasons relating not so much to Charles and Jacob themselves, but to the plans of the favorite. At first, he also did not seek to attract a young heir, but Jacob was getting old, and Buckingham’s plans did not include losing influence under the next king. He gradually begins to draw Jacob into Karl's relationship. He was rather cool about his father’s obviously romantic relationship with Buckingham, but according to Young, during the period when Charles began to be drawn into this circle, such relations between James and Buckingham gradually faded away due to the king’s old age and the marriage of his favorite Young M. B. Charles I, Basingstoke, UK, 1997, P.16. This, in his opinion, helped Karl psychologically accept this situation. Carlton believes that Karl quite consciously accepted the role of second violin in this trio, realizing that he could not compete with the favorite for his father's attention, and soon firmly took such a position in their relationship, which can be characterized by addressing him, which he constantly used in relation to him, Jacob in his correspondence with him and Buckingham - “Baby Charles” Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. London, 1995 P. 24. This idea is confirmed in the Spanish correspondence of Jacob with Charles and Buckingham. Karl, even when the letters seem to be addressed to the heir, he clearly remains somewhere in the background. All of Jacob's emotions fall on the share of Backingham, while Karl receives mainly instructions on behavior (which again draws parallels with Henry) Letters of king James VI and I. California, London, 1984. P.388-422. It cannot be said that Jacob does not have any special feelings for his son, who is in a rather dangerous situation for that time; no, he was worried about Karl, but his anxiety, as with Henry, is more about the fear of losing an heir, rather than a loved one.

Charles's relationship with Buckingham is usually assessed as fraternal. Many are surprised how he, who was so hostile to his father’s lifestyle, was able to keep his all-powerful favorite with him. It was greatly influenced by the fact that Buckingham, in principle, was one of the first to show interest in him. Karl's failed attempts to get closer to Henry also had a strong impact. It must be said that not only the relationship between Yakov himself and his household, but also between them themselves was quite complex. Many people note Henry's dislike for Karl, whom he constantly teased. So Carlton believes that Jacob used his younger son to rein in his elder, pointing out Karl’s diligence, and once even promising to leave the crown to the latter Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. London, 1995 P. 14. No matter how unrealistic this threat may be. This hardly contributed to the improvement of relations between the brothers. There is a well-known anecdote when, while waiting for the king, Henry took the headdress from Archbishop Abbott, put it on nine-year-old Charles and said that when he becomes king, he will make him Archbishop of Canterbury, since he studies a lot for this, and besides, long clothes will hide his crooked painful legs. Karl was so upset that he took off his clothes, stamped his feet and ran away in tears. Karl repeatedly tried to establish contact with his brother. Carlton writes that here too he tried in some way to buy his attention. Ibid., P. 14-15 Moreover, in his attempts, the inexperienced Karl often went too far - so when Henry and his entourage refused to change the French fashion to Italian, Karl did the same. But despite all his attempts, Henry did not have the patience to communicate with his younger brother, he clearly preferred the company of his sister Elizabeth. However, Carleton, despite such clearly strained relations, points out that Karl took Henry’s death very hard.

Thus, it is necessary to note the following features of Jacob’s relationship with his youngest son. First of all, they were distinguished by Charles’s actual position by birth: he was not an heir, and, therefore, was not as important a figure for Jacob as Henry. The second is the prince’s poor health, which both reduced communication with his parents at first and initially influenced his image of a closed and weak being. In terms of education, he apparently received the same amount of attention as Henry, but in terms of personal relationships, he also did not advance beyond that, at least not until Buckingham appeared. In the last period of Jacob's reign, under the influence of his favorite, Karl became a little closer to his father, and took his special position between his father and his favorite, or rather next to them.

3. Jacob Stuart and the Duke of Buckingham: some aspects of correspondence

Anna Danish Jacob entourage

3. 1 The sensual side of correspondence

The first aspect of the correspondence that I would like to consider is the sensual side of their relationship. How did Yakov feel about his favorite, how strong was this feeling, how intimate was the side of their relationship reflected in the letters? The most active correspondence between them was conducted during the Duke of Buckingham's stay in Spain. Yakov takes the absence of his favorite extremely hard. The general tone of the poem he wrote during this period strongly resonates with the correspondence: the birds do not sing, the fountains have died down, the trees do not bloom, the spring itself has slowed down until the happy return of two people close to him “The Spring neglets her course to keep / The air with mighty storms doth weep / The pretty birds disdain to sing / The meads to sweal, the woods to spring / The mountains drop, the fountains mourn / Till Jack and Tom do safe return” / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, P. 171.

The same melancholy that permeates these lines also creeps into the letters. Never before had they been separated for such a long period of time. Already in the second letter, Jacob asks his son to hurry up and return Buckingham to him as soon as possible Ibid., P.166. And in the next he writes that he wears a portrait of his favorite “I have no more, but that I wear Steenie’s picture...next my heart” “I have nothing more to add, except that I wear a portrait of Stinnie... hearts” / Ibid., P.168-169. The correspondence is unusually intense: after eleven days of absence of letters, Yakov himself begins to worry about his “boys” regularly, both to both of them, and to each of them separately. fear, since Buckingham and Charles undertook a truly unusual and dangerous adventure for those times. This is what the king writes in one of his letters to the Duke: “My only sweet and dear child, I am now so miserable a coward, as I do nothing, but weep and.” mourn, for I protest to God, I rode this afternoon a great way in the park without speaking to anybody, and the tears trickling down my cheeks, as now they do, that I scarcely see to write.....and so harden my heart against your absence" / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J. O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, P. 232:

“My dear and dear child, I am such a miserable coward, because I do nothing but cry and mourn; I went to the park today, but I didn’t talk to anyone, and tears flowed down my cheeks just like now, which I write with difficulty... and my heart is against your absence.”

There is no reason not to trust these words of Yakov. How acutely he experiences this separation confirms our opinion about the king’s deep affection for his favorite. However, here we are faced with the question of what this attachment had a predominant shade. The fact is that in this part there is one letter, which allows scientists to draw two opposing conclusions from it. It dates back to the time after Buckingham’s return from Spain, after the failure of the Spanish marriage project “My only sweet and dear child, ...And yet I cannot content myself without sending you this present, praying God that I may have a joyful and comfortable meeting with you and that we may make at this Christmas a new marriage … for God so love me, as I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow's life without you. 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" / Letters of king James VI and I. California, London, 1984, P. 431.

“My dear child, I cannot be satisfied without sending you a gift, and I pray to God that he will send you and me a joyful and pleasant meeting, and that we may enter into a new marriage this Christmas, since the Lord loves me so much that I I want to live in this world only for your sake, and I prefer the life of an exile with you in any part of the earth to the sad life of a widower without you. May God bless you, my dear child and wife, and may you always be a comfort to your dear father and husband."

Bray sees this “new marriage” that James speaks of as a metaphor for a shared communion that will symbolically and publicly seal their friendship and confirm Buckingham’s position, slightly shaken after the failure of the Spanish marriage and England’s involvement in the war on the continent. However, the terms in which Yakov writes to his favorite confront us with a hint of the intimate side of their relationship, which the researcher studiously ignores.

After the trip, Buckingham falls ill and Jacob is again separated from his pet. In the first letter, having received the news about the impossibility of the favorite’s presence at the hunt, he writes about how concerned he is about Buckingham’s health, advises him to be careful with medicines and doctors, and also expresses the hope that he will recover tomorrow evening. and will be able to attend the hunt “Alas! Dear, your letter yesterday hurt my heart so much, for God’s sake, be as careful as possible with medications and doctors...” / “Alas! Sweet heart, thy letter yesternight made my heart so bleed, for God's sake be as wary as thou can with drugs and physicians…” / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818 p. . , P.151-152. Jacob emphasizes that without Buckingham hunting will not give him real pleasure “I can’t take no pleasure... until you return” / “I can take no pleasure...till thou come” / Ibidem.. In the next letter After admiring the brilliant behavior of the pack of dogs Buckingham had given him, Jacob again expresses concern for his health and advises: “Now remember to breathe the fresh air carefully, and for God’s sake and mine, keep yourself warm, especially your head and shoulders.” “Remember now to take the air discreetly and for God's sake and mine keep thyself very warm especially thy head and shoulders” / Ibidem .. At the end of the letter he adds that Buckingham’s “old supplier” sends him 6 partridges and two hares and is going to send a pheasant (and later, judging by Jacob’s letters, similar gifts are repeated several times). The next letter is written by Prince Charles under the dictation of his father, since Jacob has pain in his right elbow and knee and is unable to write himself. At the end, Yakov again repeats his desire to see his favorite, whose presence will undoubtedly restore his health, “but he hopes that your coming here... will make him a healthy person again” / “but he hopes that your coming merrily hither... will make him a hale man again” / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, pp. 153-155. The fact that Jacob was really very worried about separation from Buckingham and sincerely cared about his health can also be seen from the letter where the Duke speaks of Jacob’s broken promise to write little, since these numerous letters mean that Jacob is worried Ibid., P.238-239 . Buckingham, in response to Yakov’s messages about his melancholy and unsuccessful hunt, writes that he is very pleased that Yakov is so important for his presence, which brings him good luck, and of course, for Yakov’s sake, he will try to recover as quickly as possible. He then sends a servant to attend Jacob's hunt and then return to him with a report. Thus, he is trying to at least in this way make up for his absence from the king’s side and establish more physical contact, so to speak, than the opportunity that correspondence provided.

In other letters, Yakov also repeatedly expresses his affection for his favorite. He looks forward to their meetings (“My dear child, I beg you to hurry home to your dear father before sunset”), which give him such pleasure (“And the Lord will send me a pleasant and happy meeting with my Stinny this evening”) “My only sweet and dear child, I pray thee haste thee home to your dear dad by san -setting”; “and thus God send me a joyful and happy meeting with my sweet Steenie this evening” / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, P. 149-150 that when Buckingham is unable to meet him because of a meeting with the Spanish ambassador, to which he is sent on behalf of James himself, he writes, upset, that Buckingham could meet him any day of the week, because, despite the fact that he himself gave him this task, he still expected him this evening, and be that as it may, Buckingham should try to be with him tomorrow before dinner Ibid., P.158 -159.

How can we characterize their correspondence relationship? Were they fleeting and insignificant, as a number of researchers believe? Jacob's letters somewhat contradict this point of view. The flow of letters sent to the favorite not only has its symbolic meaning as a demonstration of mercy, it also confirms that, as the Venetian ambassador put it, the king “will not eat and will not remain an hour without him ... and considers him his main joy.” Thus, we are not talking about the insignificance of feelings, but perhaps about their too great significance for Jacob. At the beginning of the rise of the Duke of Buckingham, he was perceived as some kind of decoration, an insignificant figure in politics, who served only for the personal pleasure of the king. And, it would seem, the letters of Jacob, missing him while hunting and demanding his presence, or asking him to forget about all the sorrows so that the king could see the gentle smile of his favorite addressed to him, confirm this aesthetic approach. However, we see that such a view does not at all reflect the fullness of their relationship, even early period. Yakov strives to meet his favorite not only when he is removed from him for too long due to illness, but also when he is simply delayed because of his errand. He is not just bored, he is sad and cannot find joy in his favorite pastime, hunting, in Buckingham’s absence. In the end, he begins to hunt for him, sending the sick pet the results of his hunt, which he proudly emphasizes in his letters. Of course, one cannot help but notice a certain egoistic note in the correspondence. Jacob is mainly focused on his feelings: he waits for his favorite to recover in order to calm down; in his blessing he adds “to reassure your dear father.” However, this is how he emphasizes the importance of Buckingham for him, who turns into the central figure of his life: the well-being of the British monarch depends on the well-being of this “dog,” as Buckingham called himself, which he openly writes about in his letters.

Here it is necessary to stop and return to Alan Bray's thesis about the public nature of friendship Bray Alan The Friend University of Chicago Press, 2003, P.13-42. He is inclined to consider Jacob’s correspondence only in a symbolic sense, and consider such statements by the king, like public hugs, kisses and shared communion, precisely as confirmation of Buckingham’s status as the king’s first subject, excluding the intimate side of their friendship.

3. 2 Symbolic and functional meaning of correspondence

Accordingly, let’s try to consider the following aspect of this correspondence: how did the participants themselves view this correspondence? So, during Buckingham’s illness, Jacob actually wrote to the Duke a lot, as can be seen from the surviving part of the correspondence, and apparently there were many more letters. And to these letters he undoubtedly expected an answer from his favorite. But during his illness, the duke was clearly unable to answer the king constantly and in the completeness that Jacob demanded of him (his wife partially replaced him on this mission). Despite the slightly humorous tone of the letter, two phrases can be distinguished that reveal how the duke and the duke and the king perceived this correspondence. “Your mistakes are signs of your favor (patronage)” - what the king wrote to him so often and often with his with my own hand, in addition to manifestations of sincere concern for the health of the favorite, it was undoubtedly for Buckingham that it was a constant confirmation of the important place he occupied in Jacob’s life, which is why the Duke writes that he would be worried about the temporary absence of letters from Jacob, since this would mean that he was losing his place in and in heart and at the king's court. That is why he tries to maintain this correspondence, and even emphasizes that, despite feeling unwell, he specially gets up to write to the king Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, p. 236. In another letter, Buckingham writes that on his own last letter he received as many as three or four letters from Yakov, but did not answer, because, despite the hundreds of answers he wrote in his imagination, not one of them could satisfy him. And all because “never has a servant received more from his master.” good letters, and so great a king did not condescend to so low - his humble slave and servant - than I can answer - with nothing but silence, for my speech is rude" Ibid., P. 243-244. In another letter, Buckingham characterizes the letters that he wrote to him. Jacob: “to talk to him in a spirit of such warm friendship, with expressions of greater care than servants receive from their masters.....which was shown to me in sickness and in health; with more tenderness than parents receive their children, with more friendship (friendliness) than there is between equals, with more love than between lovers in the highest degree: husband and wife." Ibidem.. Here again it is noted that Yakov, with his letters and the manifestation of warm feelings in them honors Buckingham, distinguishes him from the many royal subjects equal to him.

The question arises about how this correspondence was perceived by the king himself, what symbolic and functional meaning did it carry in his eyes? It should be noted that Yakov controlled his correspondence. Repeatedly we come across reminders of how many letters he wrote, or requests to re-read the previous letter. This is especially evident during Buckingham’s trip to Spain. It is reasonable that he counted the number of letters he wrote to his favorite and his son, but Jacob lists in detail how many letters he wrote to each of Buckingham’s relatives - thus, he focuses on the part of the correspondence that was not so important during this period, demonstrating to his favorite that in his absence his family is under the patronage of Yakov (he speaks about this directly, but for us now the role of correspondence is more important), which is confirmed by the many letters written by him (in his own hand). And again in the body of the letter. we find direct confirmation of its functional significance.

3. 3 Displaying status in correspondence

The next question that interests us is how they viewed them, if we can express a professional relationship. Here I would like to analyze not the actual issues that they discussed in this part, but namely, how they positioned and characterized themselves in them.

From Jacob’s side, we have one letter in which he, upset that the meeting with his favorite may not take place, writes that B. is too principled in keeping his word given to his king, and neglecting his own pleasure (meeting with Jacob) for the sake of what was entrusted to him affairs: “Alas! Dear, I see how scrupulously you keep your word to me, when you prefer it to the pleasure of our meetings.” “Alas, sweet heart, I find by this how precise thou art to keep thy word to me, when thou prefers it to thy own greatest comfort in coming to me” / Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, pp. 158-159.

The Duke echoes this theme, talking about the necessity that, despite the word given to Jacob, forces him to refuse all the pleasures that all lie for him in meetings with Jacob “Since necessity forces me, instead of returning to you, according to your order and my promise, to leave... all the pleasure and joy for me lie mainly, not exclusively, in meetings with you” “as necessity enforces me, instead if repairing to you according to your command and my promise to go many miles from you another way,…all my perfect joy and pleasures, chiefly, nay, solely consisting in attending your person” / Ibid. P. 240.

Here besides love theme, we see a clear emphasis on Buckingham’s diligent execution of the king’s will, creating a picture of the favorite’s devoted selfless service to the king.

Another letter from Buckingham already emphasizes not so much diligence as Buckingham’s loyalty, who, in gratitude for his elevation, will always take the side of his condescending master Ibid., P.243-244. Thus, we have before us an ideal subject, faithful and obedient to the will of the monarch. It must be said that the Duke almost never forgot to emphasize this position of his subject, appreciating the mercy of the monarch, which is demonstrated to us by his signature “Your majesty"s humble slave and dog" and his constant request for blessing. Almost unchanged: in one of letters, Buckingham apologizes to the king for the fact that he really forgot to ask for his blessing in the last letter, and asks for a double despite the humorous tone, the constant presence of this element still speaks of a fairly serious attitude towards him in their correspondence (as Buckingham’s wife Kate in. In a letter to the king, she writes that she asks for a blessing, like her husband, but she writes on his behalf, however, in another letter of hers, where she writes on her own behalf, Jacob also attaches great importance to this moment of correspondence: no matter how small. his letter to his favorite ends almost invariably with Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818., P.152. This mutual exchange is like a constantly repeated oath, which consolidates the status, professional aspect of their relationship.

3.4 Family of the favorite in correspondence

One of the fairly frequently reflected themes in this part is the family of the Duke of Buckingham. It was large enough and, as many researchers agree, it received enough benefits from the rise of the favorite. This applies to the policy of distributing titles and positions, in which Buckingham had a primary influence on the king (1618 - his mother Lady Beaumont becomes Countess of Buckingham, 1616 - half-brother John becomes a knight, then a page of the Royal Bedchamber, keeper of the Royal Robe, then Baron Villiers of Stoke and Viscount Purbeck, 1617 - his younger brother Christopher became a gentleman of the royal bedchamber, in 1623 he simultaneously received the titles of Baron Villiers of Daventry and Earl of Oglesey (without prior knighting, as tradition required), in 1622 the husband of Susan's sister Sir William Fielding became Viscount Fielding, in 1622 Earl of Denbigh, their son first receives the title of Baron Fielding, and then Viscount Calan), and the arrangement of marriage parties for family members (Christopher, daughter of Thomas Selden, Lord Norries, John, daughter of Sir Edward Coke, etc.) Fedorov S.E. Early Stuart aristocracy. St. Petersburg, 2005, pp. 259-268. Buckingham himself in 1620, on the recommendation of James, married Catherine Manners, daughter of the Earl of Rutland, a famous participant in the Essex conspiracy, who enjoyed the very stable trust of the king. What place does the favorite’s family occupy in his correspondence with the king, and what can we learn from there about Jacob’s attitude towards her?

We come across several letters from his wife Kate to the king. In one of the letters, on behalf of Buckingham, she thanks Yakov for his letter about the start of the hunt and conveys his wishes for its successful continuation; she also talks about her husband’s health and asks Yakov to write to him. As is usual for Buckingham’s correspondence, at the end she asks for Jacob’s blessing, again with a reference to her husband Ibid., pp. 249-250. In the next letter, written apparently a year after the birth of her daughter, Jacob's goddaughter, the countess thanks for the fruit the king sent her and announces her intention to soon wean her. She emphasizes that she would never do this without informing Yakov first. She explains to the king why she decided to do this so early, and says that she is going to try how the child will bear everything tonight.

In addition to the direct correspondence between them, we repeatedly see mention of Kate in Jacob’s letters to Buckingham. So, during her pregnancy, Jacob instructs Buckingham in detail how he and Kate should behave: not tell her exciting news, ride more carefully in the carriage, pay attention to nutrition Ibid., P.150. In another letter, in anticipation of the favorite’s recovery, Yakov writes that he should bring with him his wife, sister and mother, whose presence will only add joy to their meeting. Also complaining about his health, he writes (more precisely, writes Karl, who acted as his secretary due to his father’s illness) that he is looking forward to Buckingham and his wife appearing so that they can take care of him Letters of the Kings of England / Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818, pp. 159-160. When Buckingham does not fulfill this wish of his, Jacob reminds him of him, scolding his favorite for the stupid question about whether they can come, when he already wrote twice that he would “gladly receive them.” During the Duke’s trip to Spain he asks Jacob to take care of his wife and daughter: “I have nothing more to add, except that I entrust my unfortunate wife and daughter to your care,” and literally in the next letter, Jacob reports that he has already sent three letters of comfort to Kate and received from her answer “I have nothing more to say, but to reccomend my poor little wife and daughter to your care” / Ibid., P. 163-164. A little later, counting total letters written in his own hand, he reports five letters written to Kate during Buckingham’s stay abroad. It can be concluded that the exchange of letters between the Duchess of Buckingham and the king was quite common. During Buckingham's stay in Spain, Jacob informs him of Kate's poor health and his hope of becoming godfather again. Thus, Kate is present in the correspondence on several levels:

· was her husband’s secretary when he was unable to write to the king himself

· corresponded directly with Yakov

· was one of the topics of their communication

As for the first level, despite Fr. that only a few such letters are presented, this did not seem to be something special either for Jacob or for Buckingham, and perhaps there were more. However, it should immediately be noted that in the letters written by Kate for Buckingham, there is no professional component of their relationship, and there are no frank recognitions of the depth of the relationship between the favorite and the king that are present in the other letters. Their topics are limited to the health of Jacob and Buckingham (apparently Kate most often performed this function during her husband’s illness), hunting, etc. Kate's role, on this side, does not seem large enough, other than the fact that she was, in principle, allowed into their correspondence as an intermediary, although the letters transmitted through her do not carry such a strong informative and sensory load as the others.

However, her own correspondence with the king and her position in his correspondence with her husband is characterized by a much more personal theme and creates an idea of ​​​​the warm feelings of Jacob's subjects towards the wife of his favorite. And not only to his wife, but also to their daughter, whose godparent he was and whom he cared about very much. In one of the letters, the king sends his blessing to a young couple (from 156), who will give him many children so that he has someone to play with. Such a warm relationship between Jacob and Buckingham’s wife, of course, somewhat calls into question the intimate side of the king’s relationship with his favorite. Researchers who defend this point of view point to the king’s obvious desire to marry his wards (it was Jacob who initiated the marriage of both Sommerset and Buckingham), which, in their opinion, excludes the presence of Jacob’s love for them. Their opponents, in turn, note, as reflected in the correspondence, that Kate’s appearance not only did not reduce or nullify her husband’s relationship with the king, but rather transferred it to another level, into which she was in some way introduced. And this was not just rationalistic-calibrated mercy to the favorite’s wife: the way Jacob writes to Kate, about Kate, and about her child, is not at all similar to the style of his letters when he writes about his own family. They really took up enough of his life important place, which Jacob’s affection for Buckingham contributed to, but did not at all imply.

Alan Bray offers an interesting interpretation of Jacob's statement about his desire to be the permanent godfather of Buckingham's children, explaining this as a demonstration of the status of the favorite, the degree of his closeness to the king, and also considering it as a kind of sacred act that cemented friendship for them personally and for those around them Bray Alan The Friend / University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 13-42. This point, as well as the general thesis about the public nature of friendship during this period, must be taken into account, but not absolute, as Bray does.

The same caution must be applied to the statement about Jacob's demonstrative and symbolic behavior in relation to the entire Buckingham clan. From the previous chapter we see that Jacob’s correspondence with members of his family was a kind of confirmation of his continued favor to his favorite. But if we consider this, like numerous titles and positions, only from this point of view, then we again reduce it to zero personal factor. At that time, if you look at the letters, only a few members of Buckingham's family are constantly present there: his mother, wife, daughter and sister Susan (and the recipients are mainly Sue and Kate). The rest, such as Buckingham's brother, appear there sporadically and usually without any sensory attachment. Therefore, Jacob’s own statement about the joy of communicating with all “countesses” should not be discounted, especially given his general aversion to female society. The fact that he endured them through force is unlikely; this would certainly be reflected in the correspondence, but the influence of his love for Buckingham is obvious here: this is not so much an attempt to please the favorite, but rather a spread of the feelings he felt for him to his family members, not all of them, of course. The rest successfully advanced at court, received titles (which is quite consistent with Bray’s concept), but were not included in the sensual sphere of the king’s correspondence.

Thus, we have tried to analyze three themes highlighted in the letters of James I and the Duke of Buckingham. This is a love issue, the perception and role of correspondence, the Buckingham family, positioning in the “professional sphere”. How can we summarize the information that correspondence provides us?

On the question of Jacob's feelings towards Buckingham, she gives us an idea of ​​the latter's extraordinary importance for the king. Yakov sincerely loved his last favorite and at the end of his life he could no longer imagine life without him. It can be noted that this love was partly of a somewhat selfish nature on Jacob’s part. It is also impossible to exclude a note of patronage, which, however, is clearly not a manifestation of paternal feelings, but rather a reflection of both status and age differences. As for the question of the physical side of their relationship, here we can only judge hints about it. Of course, the unusually warm tone of the correspondence, Yakov’s impatient anticipation of evening meetings, tender addresses (“dear sweet child”, “sweet heart”), frank declarations of love, coupled with comments from contemporaries, do not allow one to deny its existence. However, to use Bergeron's terminology, James's letters do give us an idea of ​​"desire" but not of "reality." In this part, as has been shown, the letters lend themselves to very diverse, if not contrary, interpretations. Therefore, although it is worth paying attention to how Yakov himself wrote about his feelings, treat this with caution, taking into account all the variety of possible interpretations. If we return to the question of the perception of these relationships by contemporaries and researchers, then correspondence is a wonderful source for looking at these relationships not so much from a moral point of view, but rather to really try to understand the feelings experienced by the characters, to reveal the inner side of their relationship.

On the question of the meaning of the correspondence for both of its participants, we can partly agree with its symbolic interpretation. But only partly. On both sides there is indeed an opinion on the role of letters as a demonstration of royal favor, strengthening and constant confirmation of the status of the favorite. However, this correspondence function should not be taken into account. It frankly carries not only a symbolic, but also a sensual and partly professional orientation. In the latter, we see a clear emphasis by both participants in the correspondence (but more by the Duke of Buckingham) on the theme of loyalty, love and obedience to their monarch, a demonstrative indication of the status position of both and its consolidation. The favorite's family also occupies an important place in this correspondence. Its presence is partly due to the symbolic function of correspondence. But it is not possible to deny, as was indicated, its significance for Jacob in a sensory sense and to reduce everything only to rational explanations.

Conclusion

Based on the objectives set in the introduction, the following points can be highlighted.

The first chapter posed the following main questions: the existence of court opposition to Anne of Denmark and an analysis of Jacob's views on marriage.

Marriage for Jacob was his duty as a monarch. It was necessary to approach this issue at an adult age and with a certain set of parameters. First of all, he perceived his wife not as a lover, but as a queen and the mother of his heirs. He respected and loved Anna because she was his wife. It was this status that determined the nature of Jacob’s relationship with Anna of Denmark. That is why he was sincerely surprised when she accused him of preferring someone else to her. For him, she occupied a unique position, which no one but her could claim, as well as the feelings that he had for her. For Yakov, the relationship between friends and helpers came to the fore in the relationship between the spouses. The wife was supposed to become a support for him as a king. Of course, the question arises to what extent Anna met the requirements that Yakov made of his wife. She was never able to become a person truly close to Yakov, on the level that he allowed. Perhaps the reason for this was the character of the queen, who sought to play a slightly different role than the one that James assigned for his wife, both in personal relationships and in politics. As for Anna's court opposition, it was rather an illusion; more precisely, it took place only as an organic and controlled part of Jacob's polycentric court. Moreover, this was not so much opposition as providing living space for a certain group of courtiers, with opportunities to realize themselves accordingly in it.

We tried to analyze this level in the third chapter. In general, the leitmotif of the correspondence between Jacob and Buckingham is the sensual side of their relationship. Letters to Buckingham are filled with many confessions of Jacob's frank affection for his favorite, in which the king does not see anything special or shameful, and which are practically not found in his letters to his wife and children. As for the existence of the physical side of these relationships, here the correspondence can be subject to a variety of interpretations and it is quite difficult to take a principled position. Another important aspect of Jacob’s relationship with his favorite is the professional one, in which the Duke of Buckingham acts as the person closest to the monarch, being his representative and, accordingly, endowed with the greatest power. One should not miss Bray’s symbolic interpretation of correspondence as a constant reproduction of royal favor. In general, these two components of their relationship place Buckingham in a special, different position from others in his personal relationship with Jacob. Thus, if in the first two chapters we see a clear predominance of the status component, then in the third the leading one was, on the contrary, the sensual side. At the same time, it is not possible to contrast the king’s relationship with his family and with his favorite, since both were for Jacob an organic component of the monarch’s family circle.

List of sources and literature used

Sources:

1. Letters of king James VI and I. California, London, 1984.

2. Letters of the Kings of England/ Ed. by J.O. Halliwell-Phillipps, London 1818

3. Letters of Lady Arbella Stuart/ Ed. Sara Jayne Steen. N-Y., 1994.

4. Original letters, illustrative of English history; including numerous royal letters; from autographs in the British Museum, and one or two other collections/ Ed. Henry, Sir Ellis, in 3 Vol., vol.3

5. The Political Works of James I./Ed. McIlwain C.H., Cambridge, 1918

Literature:

1. Aikin L. Memoirs of the court of King James the First 2 Vol. London, 1822

2. Birch, T. The life of Henry, prince of Wales, eldest son of King James I. L., 1760

3. Bray A. The Friend, University of ChicagoPress, 2003

4. Carlton, C. Charles I: The personal monarch. Routledge, 1995

5. Fischlin D. Royal Subjects: Essays on the Writings of James VI and I/ Writing King James's Sexuality/, Detroit, 2002, P. 344-371

6. Gristwood S. Arbella England's lost queen. London., 2003

7. Hudson Shaw W. George Villiers first duke of Buckingham, Oxford, 1882

8. Lewalski B. Enacting Opposition: Queen Anne and Subversions of Masquing // Writing Women in Jacobean England. Cambridge, 1993.

9. Lockyer R. Tudor&Stuart Britain 1471-1714.London.1981

10. Miller J. The Stuarts Hambledon and London, 2004

11. Patterson W. R. King James VI and I and the reunion of Christendom. Cambridge., 2000.

12. Peck L. Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England London, 1993

13. Wielson D. H. King James VI and I. London, 1956

14. Young M. B. Charles I, Basingstoke, U.K., 1997

15. England of the 17th century: ideology, politics, culture / Ed. S.E. Fedorova, St. Petersburg, 1992.

16. Zvereva G.I. History of Scotland. M., 1987.

17. Kovalev V. A. Royal ceremony of the early Stuarts. Abstract. Ph.D. St. Petersburg, 2006.

18. Fedorov S.E. “Making Her the Maire Wilful” Anna of Denmark and her court entourage (1590-1593) // The Royal Court in the political culture of medieval Europe. Theory. Symbolism. Ceremonial. / Ed. ON THE. Khachaturian. M., 2004. pp. 114-133

19. Fedorov S.E. Early Stuart aristocracy. St. Petersburg, 2005.

20. Shtokmar V.V. History of England in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 2003

21. Etsina E. I. Ideological and political foundations of the early Stuart monarchy. Author's abstract. Ph.D., St. Petersburg, 2006

22. Hume D. England under the rule of the House of Stuart.// Transl. A.A. Vasiliev; Ed. S.E.Fedorov St. Petersburg, 2001

23. Dictionary of national biography/ Ed. by L.Stephen, 27 vol. London., 1888.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

The Glorious Revolution is the name adopted in historiography for the 1688 coup d'etat in England, as a result of which King James II Stuart was overthrown. Stages, political and legal results of this historical phenomenon and assessing its significance.

test, added 08/25/2013


Biographical information about the life of Anna Ioannovna - Russian empress from the Romanov dynasty. The time of her reign, which later became known as the “Bironovschina” after her favorite Biron. Domestic policy of the new government, ongoing reforms.

presentation, added 01/16/2015


A brief description of the stages of political struggle during the reign of Charles I Stuart. The question of the boundaries of royal power in the field of foreign policy. Characteristic features of the political behavior of Charles I. Political and legal ideology of the opposition.

abstract, added 11/17/2008


The fate of Anna Tyutcheva, the daughter of a famous poet and diplomat. Biographical facts, history of serving as a maid of honor at the court of Anna Feodorovna. Tyutcheva’s influence in the court environment, pedagogical talent in communicating with the royal children. The period of conversion to Slavophilism.

article, added 12/02/2009


The personality of Elizabeth Tudor, the period of her reign. The entourage of the future queen. Domestic and foreign policy of Elizabeth I of England Tudor. Economic development of the country, solution of religious problems. England's wars with Scotland, Spain, relations with Russia.

course work, added 02/20/2015


Defensive Operations Soviet troops near Stalingrad. Preparation Soviet command to a counteroffensive. Encircling the enemy and disrupting his attempt to release the encircled group. Liquidation of the encircled group of Nazi troops.

thesis, added 08/07/2009


Causes and nature of the Second World War. Counter-offensive of Soviet troops near Kursk. Encirclement and destruction of German troops at Stalingrad. Belarusian strategic offensive"Bagration". The history of the origins of the partisan movement.

course work, added 06/21/2016


Brief curriculum vitae from the life of Anna Ioannovna. Consequences of adopting the "Condition". Proclamation of Anna Ioannovna as autocratic Empress. Punishment with lashes in the Secret Chancery (etching late XVIII V.). Features of the government of Elizabeth Petrovna.

presentation, added 04/18/2011


The reign of the Merovingian dynasty (481-751) before the accession of Charlemagne to the throne. History of Christianity in Gaul (V-VIII centuries). The relationship between the authorities and the episcopate, the development of monasticism. Changes in the Frankish Church with the rise to power of Charlemagne.

abstract, added 04/15/2015


The reign of Anna Ioannovna as one of the most interesting reigns in the era of palace coups, her role and significance in the history of Russia. Characteristics of government, court life, assessment of Anna Ioannovna’s policies by foreign political scientists of her time.