I've been asked a few times since I commented on the King James Bible edit for some documentation on James' homosexuality and misogyny. Unfortunately, I no longer have the book from which I first got the information, but my very brief cursory dig turned up two good references pointing to the King's taste for the companionship of men. As I find more on his dislike of women, I'll add it.

From "The Queens of England" by Norah Lofts, in the chapter 'Anne of Denmark, Queen of James I', page 124:

"If Anne of Denmark is shown to posterity as a rather irritable and irritating woman, she may perhaps be excused, for she was one of those unfortunate women married to a bi-sexual man."

And (same book, page 125):

"James appeared to be deeply grieved by her death, and it is possible that despite their quarrels, she had excersized some influence upon him. He outlived her by seven years and his devotion to his male favorites became more conspicuous. Manners at Court declined to a point at which no lady wished to be seen there."

And from "The Oxford Book of Royal Anecdotes" by Elizabeth Longford, in the chapter 'James I', page 250:

"James and his favorite (the Duke of) Buckingham exchanged many loving letters. One from Buckingham began "Dear Dad and Gossip" and ended with "Your most humble slave and dog, Steenie."

And (same book, page 250):

"...Now, as no other reason appeared in favour of their choyce but handsomenesse, so the love the King shewed was as amorously conveyed as if he had mistaken their sex, and thought them ladies; which I have seen Sommerset and Buckingham labour to resemble, in the effiminatenesse of their dressings, though in Whoreson looks and wanton gestures, they exceed the part of any womankind my conversation did ever cope withall."

I get the biggest kick from modern "christians" who rant against homosexuality, and point to their beloved "1611 KJV" bible as containing the evidence that "God hates fags", when it was in fact commisioned and edited by one.

About the homosexuality: Around page 566 of my copy of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841), Chuck Mackay goes into some detail about James I's being -- ahem -- "addicted to the most abominable of all offences" in the person of a young Scotsman named Robert Kerr. Everybody in the episode comes to a bad end, mostly by poisoning each other.

Be the evidence compelling or no, people have certainly been suspecting it since at least as far back as 1841, and Mackay claims that it was widely rumored in James I's time already.

I don't recall Mackay saying anything about James I being a misogynist, and I can't find anything on skimming through at the moment. Mackay was writing in 1841, though, a time when attitudes about women were very different than they are now. I'm not sure that what we call misogyny would have registered on Mackay as anything in particular. Reification, anyone?

Again according to Mackay, James I was also a staunch opponent of witchcraft.
Y'know, if you log in, you can write something here, or contact authors directly on the site. Create a New User if you don't already have an account.