James I And I Wormald Summary

The article ‘James VI and I: Two Kings or One?’ explores how it was possible that two nations could hold such drastically different views of their monarch, and is a convincing and compelling challenge to the stereotypically hostile historiography of James I. Wormald argues that the misconception of James I is a direct result of Jacobean author Anthony Weldon’s scathing descriptions of him, and the Stuart vilification that arose due to xenophobia and a deeply embedded distrust of the Scots.
Wormald immediately identifies one of her key issues with the scholarship of James I: the issue of conflicting historiographies. Here the difference between Notestein and Stone’s damning depictions of James differs drastically from Donaldson’s, who addresses
Wormald corroborates her claims by explaining the distribution of James’ first four peerage creations, furthering her argument that he was a strong, capable king. In addition, whilst his ‘laissez-faire’ policy has been criticised, Wormald instead claims that it is underexplored and was another of James’ successes, as it reduced tensions between government and localities. Ultimately, she argues that the undervaluing of Scottish experience, and the caricature of James being out of depth in English government, leads back to the distrust and alienation of James that resulted from being a Scot, and the vilification of the Stuarts headed by Weldon and his ilk. Instead, according to Wormald, his Scottish style of leadership was beneficial and defused tensions within the state and church. Here, she neglects to mention the religious tension James did cause, such as the banning of Catholic priests that resulted in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and therefore opposition towards him was not just xenophobia and distrust of the Scottish as she