How Successful was James I?

King James I of England, formerly James VI of Scotland, was a successful monarch in most aspects during his 23-year rule. Like most kings he had glaring shortcomings. These included a streak of laziness, uncouthness, spendthrift habits, and poor adaptation to English politics. However, he successfully united the kingdoms of England and Scotland under his rule, kept them at peace domestically and externally, and artfully maneuvered their religious factionalism. 

His reputation suffered because many English were not comfortable with having a Scottish monarch. He alienated a minor courtier named Anthony Weldon, dismissing Weldon because of xenophobic writings toward James’s native Scotland. Weldon later turned his pen viciously against James, and historians have largely taken Weldon’s accounts and concluded that James was well-meaning but lacked the political competence and morality necessary to successfully rule the joint-kingdoms.[1] A critical examination of his reign, however, reveals that when matched with the challenges he faced, James rose to them fairly well.

James inherited the Scottish throne as James VI at the age of one, but did not take the full responsibility of kingship until 1587 at age 21. He was well-educated by the humanist scholars George Buchanan and Peter Young and became quite proficient in poetry and languages.[2] 

James acceded to the English throne after Elizabeth I’s death in 1603, becoming James I. This generated great optimism from all classes in English society despite widespread xenophobia toward Scots and the two nations’ having often been at war throughout their histories. This optimism stemmed from patriachical desires for a male monarch, as well as the unpopularity that Elizabeth had gained during her last years in which the nation had become war-weary, and she had become ill-tempered.[3] 

Religious Policy

In religious policy, much like Henry VIII, James sought to eliminate factionalism within the Protestant Church, which greatly threatened peace in a country with two antagonistic nationalities. As King of Scotland, one of his goals included making the Scottish Presbyterian Church more like the English Church. He eventually succeeded partly in this with his Five Articles of Perth, in 1618, which dealt with church practice such as kneeling.[4] 

In 1604, he met with the quarreling factions within the Church of England. It was out of this meeting that produced the Authorized Version of the Bible, published in 1611, bearing his name. This began his ecumenical policy, which he perused for most of his reign in which he attempted to achieve Protestant unity within England. This set England apart as the bloody Thirty Years’ War broke out in Europe. Throughout this, he managed to provide assurance to the Protestants that England would remain Protestant, without threatening to wipe out English Catholics.[5]

Political Differences between England and Scotland

James also did not lack for political astuteness. His Presbyterian opponents complained of this ability that managed to sway opinion against their positions on church-state relations. Elizabeth’s ambassadors, Thomas Randolph and Henry Hudson, claimed in 1581 that James was “in his tender years more practiced than others forty years older than he.”[6] 

But, James VI had been a Scottish politician. The English throne forced him into a political world that he was not familiar enough with to command the same respect and achieve the same level of success as in his home country. According to historian Wallace Notestein, “James had never understood the English way of threshing things out” and “the tedious debates in parliament seemed to him a waste of time.” As someone who believed strongly in the divine right of kings, James had been used to getting things done in Scotland by the simple stroke of his pen.[7]

Foreign Policy

In foreign policy, James greatest accomplishment was in keeping England out of the costly Thirty Years War. His daughter Elizabeth had married the Protestant Elector of Palatine in 1612. James, meanwhile, wanted his son Charles to marry the Catholic Spanish Maria, partly out of a sense of honor—as only France and Spain were capable of providing a bride of the same social status—and partly in the hope that it would bring peace to Europe. This, however, angered the English who insisted that the prince marry a Protestant.[8], [9] 

Nevertheless, the Duke of Buckingham and Charles traveled to Spain together to court the princess. But she had no interest in marrying a Protestant.[10] This greatly offended Charles and soured both travelers toward Spain, with whom peace had been a major part of James’ foreign policy. On their return, they encouraged the king to declare war on the Catholic nation. Parliament, however, thwarted this by not providing James the necessary funding to wage war, thereby sparing his legacy an unsuccessful military campaign.[11]

The last years of James’s life were the most unsuccessful as far as finance and foreign policy went. His favoritism toward some and his continued generous gift giving provided the opportunity for those like Weldon, who disliked him for personal reasons, to cement his spendthrift reputation as fiscally irresponsible and immoral.[12] This was in part due to James’s compromise when it became evident that the English would never countenance a union of equality between England and Scotland because of English xenophobia. Therefore, rather than anger the English by giving the Scots land, he instead gave his ethnic countrymen money instead.[13]

Conclusion

James’s failures owed primarily to parliament, as he did not fully grasp how to deal with the English political culture or simply could not find a way to make the legislative body bend to his ideals. He was neither able to gain a Spanish bride for his son, nor convince Parliament to go to war with Spain when that didn’t work. 

His greatest achievement as king remains keeping the peace domestically, which allowed him to keep his throne in a volatile political environment. He maintained Protestant rule and retained the loyalty of most of his subjects by pursuing an ecumenical policy among the various factions. This ecumenical spirit produced his greatest legacy, the King James Bible, which continues to carry his fame today. 

The union of England and Scotland was a testament to his ability to overcome the prejudice of the English and not appear as having shed his Scottishness—an art his Anglicized son Charles never possessed. The laziness attributed to him—just as his failure to gain parliamentary approval for war with Spain—was possibly the source of his success. He tended to maintain a laissez-faire policy toward the cities and towns, and his subjects who had been used to the inconveniences of war were glad to have the lower taxation and less monarchical involvement. James’s son Charles I, however, would prove himself a much more engaged monarch, which contributed to his eventual downfall.[14], [15] 

 

Notes

[1] Jenny Wormald, “James VI and I: Two Kings or One?” History 68 (1983), 191.

[2] John Butler, James I of England (1566-1625), lumanarium.org, http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/james/jamesbio.htm.

[3] Alan G. R. Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State: The Commonwealth of England 1529-1660, (New York: Longman, 1984), 249-250.

[4] Conrad Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, 44, 49.

[5][5] Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War, 45.

[6] Wormald, “James VI and I,” 188-189.

[7] Wormald, “James VI and I,” 187.

[8] Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War, 61.

[9] Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State, 226-227.

[10] Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State, 269.

[11] Russell, The Causes of the English Civil War, 182.

[12] Wormald, “James VI and I,” 191.

[13] Wormald, “James VI and I,” 207.

[14] Wormald, “James VI and I,” 200.

[15] Smith, The Emergence of a Nation State, 253.