Sex in the forbidden zone Book

NB: the version I read was the revised and updated 2016 edition

This book exits as proof that not all books that use gender as a tool of analysis are mealy mouthed drivel written by self important activists - trust me, I've read plenty of those kinds of works to know it when I see it. King James and the history of homosexuality (KJ&HH) is based around a simple premise, namely that the sexuality and same sex relationships of James VI of Scotland and I of England was damaging to the prestige of the monarchy during his reign, contributed to political instability and in the long run was a major factor in the overthrow and execution of the homophobic, overtly (but not convincingly) macho, and bellicose Charles I - James's son. Despite the saucy title, the book isn't dripping with sleaze and sensationalism, in fact it's sympathetic to its subject without attempting to apologize for his flaws and errors of judgement. Young is able to sift through sometimes contradictory evidence with great skill, giving much detail about what went on behind the doors of the royal bedroom, along with a great deal on attitudes towards male same sex relationships and sexual practices in seventeenth century England and Scotland; spending a great deal of time defining just what precisely "sodomy" actually meant.

Added to this mix was elite criticism of James's pacifist foreign policy, deemed by his contemporaries as effeminate and a natural outcome of his sexual peccadilloes. Many were convinced that James was trading away huge chunks of national wealth for sexual favors, which undermined attempts to fix crown finances. James's wife Anna of Denmark, frequently marginalized and denied her proper role as James's consort by a succession of vapid and nasty pretty boys of varying levels of ability, to spite her unfaithful and neglectful husband, became the leader of a court faction dedicated to a more aggressive foreign policy abroad and attempted to turn her sons Henry and later Charles into the uber macho warrior kings of her dreams.

Charles, in spite of some questions over his own sexuality (something Young doesn't address oddly - maybe that's for another book), explicitly rejected his father's way's and attempted to present himself to the world at large as the image of a virile, heterosexual, Protestant warrior king. Given that the main words that is used to describe Charles in pop culture are "effete" "puny" "wimp" "pussywhipped" "poofter" and "papist"; it evidently didn't work and the legacy of James has a great deal to do with this state of affairs. What KJ&HH argues is that the political upheavals of the seventeenth century in fact constituted a "crisis of masculinity", prompted by the successive reigns of a mannish queen (Elizabeth I), a queer king (James), and one deemed not masculine enough (Charles); something that future scholars should give more attention to in their writings.

Recommended for those interested in LGBT history and seventeenth century England.