The King's Assassin: The Fatal Affair of George Villiers and James I

by Benjamin Woolley

Now a major TV series, Mary & George, starring Julianne Moore and Nicholas Galitzine.The King’s Assassin is the scandalous story of George Villiers, lover – and murderer – of King James I.The rise of George Villiers from minor gentry to royal power seemed to defy gravity. Becoming gentleman of the royal bedchamber in 1615, the young gallant enraptured James, Britain’s first Stuart king, royal adoration reaching such an intensity that the king declared he wanted the courtier to become his ‘wife’. For a decade, Villiers was at the king’s side – at court, on state occasions and in bed, right up to James’s death in March 1625.Almost immediately, Villiers’ many enemies accused him of poisoning the king. A parliamentary investigation was launched, but the charges came to nothing, and were relegated to a historical footnote.Now, new historical scholarship suggests that a deadly combination of hubris and vulnerability did indeed drive Villiers to kill the man who made him. It may have been by accident, but there is compelling evidence that Villiers, overcome by ambition and frustrated by James’s passive approach to government, poisoned him.In The King’s Assassin, acclaimed author Benjamin Wooley examines this remarkable, even tragic story. Combining vivid characterization and a strong narrative with historical scholarship and forensic investigation, Woolley tells the story of King James’s death, and of the captivating figure at its centre. What emerges is a compelling portrait of a royal favourite whose charisma overwhelmed those around him and, ultimately, himself.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Historical, LGBT, Audiobook, Queer

385 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 24, 2017

Reviews

[Beata · Rating 4 out of 5]

Having read several books on the Stuarts, I thought I should read more about George Villiers whose name was familiar to me and yet his life was rather obscure. The book did not disappoint me regarding the rise and deeds of Buckingham. The title is suggestive as to the role of Villiers in James I's demise, however, the question whether he did poison the king is still open in my view, and it may remain so. The book is informative and easy to follow, and I honestly recommend it to anyone interested in the period.

[Roman Clodia · Rating 3 out of 5]

* Contains spoilers if you're not familiar with the history of James I and Buckingham *

This is 'popular' history written with the verve of a novelist but it lacks the rigour, the judgement and the attention to cultural historicisation that an academic historian would bring.

The blurb hooks us with the idea of assassination and conspiracy as if it's new - but gossip and rumours about Buckingham's possible involvement in the poisoning of James I were rife as soon as the king died. Buckingham was even impeached before the House of Lords in 1626, the year following James' death, though parliament was dissolved before a verdict was reached, adding to the suspicions.

What Woolley brings to the party is an assertion that Buckingham did indeed poison the king with aconite, a verdict delivered by a modern doctor based on Woolley's "dossier of evidence". Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us of what this dossier consists and it's hard to imagine, almost 400 years later, that it's anything more than documentary reports of the king's deathbed - hardly stringent or reliable.

In any case, the issue of poisoning isn't reached until about 75% of the way through the book: the rest is a lively biography of George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham, and an account of the reign of James I and the coming-of-age of his son Charles I.

Woolley writes vividly (though the central section gets a bit bogged down in Anglo-Spanish politics) but there are places where his lack of historical judgement shows through. For example, he dismisses the King James Bible as a 'pet project' of the king, rather than understanding it to be a cornerstone of Reformed Protestantism, allowing anyone to read the Bible, rather than having it only in Latin mediated by a priest.

More pressingly, he pretty much asserts an unequivocal sexual relationship between James and Buckingham, something that we cannot know and which, more importantly, writes out the way in which male/male friendship in the early modern period was frequently articulated in passionate, romantic terms that seem inescapably sexual to us, but which weren't at the time. Disturbingly, there's a subliminal sense throughout that men as 'depraved' as James and Buckingham were almost bound to end up poisoned and poisoner - even if unintentional, there's a whiff of covert homophobia somewhere in the text's arguments.

Anyone interested in a rigorous academic study of the question of James' 'murder' should consult Bellany & Cogswell, The Murder of James I, Yale University Press, 2015. But if you're simply interested in a lively biography of Buckingham and his relationship with James I, this is quite a page-turner.

[Jenny · Rating 2 out of 5]

James I, King of England, Ireland and Scotland died on March 27, 1625 after an intense and painful bout of gout, malaria, and arthritis. He was attended by the most important physicians of the land and his adviser, friend and lover, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.
In the book, The King's Assassin, Benjamin Woolley offers that maybe Villiers was responsible for the Kings death. The examination of the circumstances of the Kings death comes mid way through the book. The treatment of the King's maladies was overseen by the most prominent physicians available and were standard for the time. Villiers, with assistance of his mother, offered a remedy he himself had taken the year before and led to his recovery. The King agreed and received the potion and plasters. His health improved for a few days. A dramatic decline followed and James I died.
The new King, Charles I, continued his close relationship with Villiers. Some rumors circulated that Villiers might have been responsible for James I death. There were never charges issued and Villiers continued assisting the new king. Physicians in attendance to the king claimed to use their best techniques. These facts illustrate the weakness of the book. There was no motive for Villiers to poison the King, The King loved him, pampered him and promoted him to high honors. Neither Charles nor Villiers spoke out against the King or his rule.
The assassination issue encompased about a third of the book. If Woolley's goal was to highlight the cause of James death, he could have examined it in more detail and depth. This was more an examination of the life and times of George Villiers, than an exploration of the death of James I. I received a copy of this book from Netgalley. #netgalley #thekingsassassin

[Christine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclaimer: ARC via Netgalley

If you are like me, you most likely heard about Buckingham via Alexandre Dumas’ Three Musketeers. The real Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers, is paradoxically more and less interesting.

Despite its title, this work of popular history is more of a straight biography then a presentation of what or who could have killed James I of England.

That is part of the problem. Considering the title of the book, the actual thesis of assassination doesn’t raise its head until the very end. This placement makes the title a bit misleading. True, the title isn’t the assassination of King James I, hinting at a biographer of an assassin, but the title does mislead.

As a popular biography of George Villiers, the history works. Woolley writes with energy and vigor, if at times a gossipy tone. He plays attention to the influence of the women in Villers life, but does not do the blame everything on wives and mothers route that some biographers do.

Yet, the fact that you are waiting for an assassination to raise its head does occur.

The book almost works as a biography though the later years of Buckingham’s life get short attention. It is almost as if Woolley is saying “here’s the man before the death of James I; don’t you think that he could have killed the king?”

And a thesis shouldn’t be a question.

Three stars because of the detail about Villiers, but if you want to read a historic mystery involving James I try Bellany or Somerset.

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 3 out of 5]

Netgalley #50

Many thanks go to Benjamin Woolley, MacMillan, and Netgalley for the free copy of this book in exchange for my unbiased review.

Woolley covers the dynamic affair between King James I and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, and pet extraordinaire. James became King of England after Elizabeth I's death. He was partial to attractive young men. His wife, Anne of Denmark, lived apart from him after having three children. Villiers was pampered and spoiled. The king was wrapped around his little finger. But the biggest question surrounding this relationship (which is not even mentioned until the very end of the book) is whether George had any hand in King James' death.
I realize that may be the most dramatic event to possibly occur between these two men, so that's probably why it was picked as the title, but this book is such a fitting tribute to their lives and times. Very detailed, it leaves nothing and no one of any significance out. I was impressed with the time it must have taken to fully research. I wonder if there perhaps have been a more fitting title?

[Leanda Lisle · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s a shocking theory: that the ailing James VI& I, was murdered by the man he called his ‘wife’, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Worse, Buckingham acted with James’s heir, the future Charles I, described by Woolly as a passionate collector of ‘objects d’art’. The method they chose was a Jacobean favourite - poison.

The murder story begins late on the night of 25 March 1625 when a royal servant in the pay of the Habsburgs wrote a dramatic report to his spymasters from Theobald’s palace in Hertfordshire. The fifty-eight year old James had a tertian ague, but had survived such fevers many times before. He was recovering well until ‘Monday last’, 21 March, when he was ‘forced to take a plaster on his stomach, and a scurvy drink inwards’. Buckingham, who had risen from obscurity to great power as James favourite, had provided the medicines and not informed any of the doctors what he was doing, ‘though 8 were in the house’.

The spy’s report was accurate. On the Monday night James had drunk a ’syrup’ provided by Buckingham and had cried that it had made him, ‘burn and roast’. The next night James had asked what the cordial was. Embarrassed, the doctors had re-assured James that it was only his fever that had made him burn. Would he like more syrup, they asked? ‘Will you murder and slay me?’ James retorted. It wasn’t the disease that had made him burn he insisted, ‘ it was that I had from the Duke of Buckingham’.

Buckingham not only had means and opportunity to kill his master: he also had motive. Buckingham’s future hopes were linked to the war he and Charles intended to make on the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs. Many of Buckingham’s most dangerous political enemies were linked to the war party and his new stance had drawn their sting. An army was already raised and paid for, but James had now sent orders for a stay of action. He had also arranged for the Conde de Gondomar, a former Spanish ambassador, to return to England so they could work together to preserve the peace James had signed with Spain in 1604.

If parliament’s money, used to pay for the army, was wasted, Buckingham would gain new enemies to add to the old ones he hoped he had tamed. Prince Charles might also turn against him and so blast his prospects in the next reign. James was already old and his time was running out. It was, however, arguably, more convenient for Buckingham if James were to snuff it before the war effort was ruined. On 27 March, James died, trying and failing to speak to Charles, and with Buckingham holding his hand.

It wasn’t until the following year that the incident with the poultice and syrup entered the public domain. MPs were looking for the means to impeach Buckingham for corruption. The difficulty lay in finding anyone prepared to give evidence against the still powerful favourite. Then, in April, 1626 a pamphlet appeared accusing Buckingham of having murdered James with the plaster and syrup that he had supplied for the king. The contents of this pamphlet were soon repeated in the London press.

A Parliamentary Select Committee immediately began cross-examining James’s doctors. They discovered Buckingham had twice violated rules that only the royal physicians could prescribe and administer drugs, and one doctor insisted that what Buckingham had given James was ‘no better than poison’. The House of Commons laid formal charges against Buckingham before the Lords in May. Thirteen offenses were listed. The last accused him of an ‘injury’ to King James in ‘an act of transcendent presumption and of dangerous consequence’.

Charles dissolved parliament on 15 June, before the impeachment case against Buckingham reached the Lords. This would later be taken as evidence of his own involvement, an accusation that would have been leveled against him at his trial in 1649, had Charles recognized the court that would sentence him to death as a traitor and murderer.

So far, so fascinating – but what does Woolley make of these contemporary facts?

Woolley encountered the accusation that Buckingham had a hand in King James’s death while researching his book about the seventeenth century apothecary Nicholas Culpepper. He promptly sent a ‘dossier’ of evidence to John Henry, a world-renowned toxicologist with a hobby in finding medical explanations for historical events. In late 2004 Henry delivered his verdict: James was ‘probably’ poisoned with aconite, derived from a genus of plant known as wolfsbane.

Years passed, the toxicologist died, but, in 2015, Yale University Press published a brilliant and scholarly work by Alastair Bellany and Thomas Cogswell. The details above, concerning the Habsburg agents and the events at Theobalds, come from their book, The Murder of King James I. It appears in Wooley’s bibliography only as the kindle version. This is odd for a 600 page work of reference, but Woolley does not seem to have read it very thoroughly, merely plucking out bits that fit the theme of Buckingham’s ‘scandalous life’.

He makes use of Cogswell and Bellany’s gripping account of James’s death-bed and juicy material on contemporary concerns about the homosexual nature of James’s relationship with Buckingham, but he skips much of the political, religious and diplomatic background to the accusations. There is no forensic analysis of the ‘evidence’, and he overlooks Bellany and Cogswell’s revelation that James doctors all drank the same potion as he had, while one man ate the plaster (yuk) and lived for many years. The April pamphlet of 1626 was Habsburg black propaganda and fake news.

Outside the murder story the biographical element of the King’s Assassin has well-paced passages and beautifully imagined scenes. But there is also a lot of unfiltered gossip and poorly grasped detail. James’s court was itinerant not because he was afraid of being murdered if he stayed in one place, but because the court would eat all the food around a palace and overwhelm the sanitation. Charles was not merely a shopper for ‘object d’arts’, he formed the finest royal collection of great masters in British history. Woolley describes Buckingham and James as ‘consummating’ their affair, but politely fails to delve into what that might mean. James wrote fiercely against sodomy as a sin so horrible that ‘ye are bound in conscience never to forgive [it]’. There is some serious literature out there on what James and Buckingham may or may not have got up to in the royal bed.

The King’s assassin concludes with what Woolley sees as Buckingham’s true reason for murdering James. The MPs in 1626 discovered that Charles had declined to insist James’s treatment be left to his physicians. I would think this was because Charles had witnessed the royal physicians treat his brother’s typhoid fever by tying a dead pigeon to his head; Charles also knew that Buckingham and James had a long record of providing the other with treatment for their ailments. But Woolley claims the MPs believed it was because the pair killed James to clear the way for a ‘more majestic, stately conception of monarchy’, which they had dreamed up together, and James had ‘obstructed’. Is this really likely from James, the leading advocate of divine-right kingship?

The King’s Assassin should be enjoyed with a health warning: nuts in parts; consumption may lead to serious misapprehensions.

An edited version of this review appeared in the Times August 2017

[Iain · Rating 4 out of 5]

Suitable reading as we approach King Charles III's coronation - here's how Charles I came to the throne. A compelling argument for getting rid of the monarchy, particularly James IV of Scotland and I of England who united the crowns. He is presented here as an absolutely pathetic moron, with no interest in, or care for his kingdom or the people within it - too busy living a hedonistic life of parties and sex with anyone - boy or girl, man or woman - in between bouts of ill-health. George Villiers is little better, just with added scheming and political maneuvering. The book is a slow read, and a little knowledge of the history and time helps, but I found it an interesting story of royal court life. Hard to believe what they got away with, but then the modern lot have quite a few comparable scandals of their own.

[Jenny · Rating 2 out of 5]

James I, King of England, Ireland and Scotland died on March 27, 1625 after an intense and painful bout of gout, malaria, and arthritis. He was attended by the most important physicians of the land and his adviser, friend and lover, George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham.
In the book, The King's Assassin, Benjamin Woolley offers that maybe Villiers was responsible for the Kings death. The examination of the circumstances of the Kings death comes mid way through the book. The treatment of the King's maladies was overseen by the most prominent physicians available and were standard for the time. Villiers, with assistance of his mother, offered a remedy he himself had taken the year before and led to his recovery. The King agreed and received the potion and plasters. His health improved for a few days. A dramatic decline followed and James I died.
The new King, Charles I, continued his close relationship with Villiers. Some rumors circulated that Villiers might have been responsible for James I death. There were never charges issued and Villiers continued assisting the new king. Physicians in attendance to the king claimed to use their best techniques. These facts illustrate the weakness of the book. There was no motive for Villiers to poison the King, The King loved him, pampered him and promoted him to high honors. Neither Charles nor Villiers spoke out against the King or his rule.
The assassination issue encompased about a third of the book. If Woolley's goal was to highlight the cause of James death, he could have examined it in more detail and depth. This was more an examination of the life and times of George Villiers, than an exploration of the death of James I.

[Doug · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5, rounded up.

The impetus for reading this was the upcoming miniseries, 'Mary & George', which is based on this - but apparently VERY loosely. Mary doesn't figure in this much at all - she's offstage during 98.7% of it. And the title is something of a misnomer - yes, in the final few pages, the author presents his theory that (spoiler alert!) the king's favorite (and putative lover), George Villiers, MIGHT have conspired with the king's son and heir, Charles, to do away with him via poisoning. But that is really only a minor part of the story - and much of it is consumed with dull minutia (mainly Charles' LONG drawn-out pursuit of a suitable wife, first in Spain and then eventually in France), that reads like the dreariest of Wikipedia entries. Still the story told me a lot I didn't know and was suitably enlightening that I give it a grudging 3 stars.

[Shoshana · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The King’s Assassin” is essentially the story of the rise of George Villiers from county gentry to the heights of the British aristocracy as the Duke of Buckingham. Villiers, who was handsome and charismatic, was placed in view of King James I with the intention of having the king fall in love with George, which he did. Although married and a father James was homosexual, and had several “favorites,” of whom Villiers was the last and the longest lasting. (James was not the only British king to have favorites, one thinks of Edward II and Piers Gaveston, for example.)

My problem with this book is that it is not concerned for the most part with the death of James I. Yes, he dies at the end, and the author seems to believe that Buckingham, in concert with his mother, killed him, although he does admit the possibility that they might have killed him accidentally by interfering with James’ doctors’ treatments. Woolley makes a reasonable case that Buckingham meant to kill the king in order to save himself. I am undecided about it, but no matter. The problem is that the king’s death takes up only a small portion of the book; most of the book is about Buckingham and his life as the king’s catamite. (Not my word for his lover, but one which was used at the time.)

This is not to say that the book is not interesting, it is, but the emphasis does not live up to the title or the premise. There is a long, detailed telling of the trip to Spain that Villiers and the younger Prince Charles took in furtherance of a match between Charles (by this time his father’s heir due to the death of his elder brother Prince Henry) and a Spanish princess. There is plenty of discussion about the machinations of various courtiers, some pro-George and others anti-George. But the death of the king and the uproar in Parliament about it is almost minor.

I would have liked to have seen either more about the Duke of Buckingham, including a discussion of whether he was bisexual by nature, or merely agreed to relations with the king for the power it brought (which is what I think myself), or more about the life of James I and his death. I think sexuality is fluid, and the book would have greatly benefited from a frank discussion about how homosexuality was considered in the seventeenth-century, especially in relationship with a hereditary monarchy. Woolley hints at a relationship between Buckingham and Prince Charles, and I would have been interested in seeing this further fleshed out. Charles was certainly under Buckingham’s spell, but George Villiers was incredibly charismatic and older enough than the prince to be an attractive mentor.

All in all, I am glad that read this book. It was a little too much neither fish nor fowl, which is why I cannot give it five stars. It was well-written, not dry, and did eventually get around to the death of King James I and the case against his lover the Duke of Buckingham. Whether or not Buckingham purposely killed his sovereign can never be definitively known at this remove, but Woolley has a good try at convincing his readers that it was Buckingham (and his devoted mother) whodunnit.

I received an ARC from the publisher and NetGalley for my honest opinion.

[Moraa]

binged the series and now I'm here

[Andrew H · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very well written investigation of James I and his favourite, George Villiers. A reader should look elsewhere, however, for an analysis of the monarch's sexual orientation. Woolley accepts the erotic charge between the two, but does not probe the question of sodomy -- how James could love George, as Christ his John, whilst not seeing this as against religious orthodoxy. In The King's Assassin, Woolley focuses on the political ambitions of George Villiers and how this led to accusations of poisoning and regicide. From one point-of-view, this line of enquiry justifies staying clear of the sexual question and The Bog of historical definitions. From another angle, this avoids a key element: did Villiers possibly murder a lover? Was it Christ and Judas? In this study, Woolley writes with style and humour, and some parts of the book are wonderfully funny, but also with a sense of balance of judgement. Never does the book become salacious or anything less than a serious work of historical writing. For Woolley, George Villiers emerges as a tragic character, a man manipulated into office who became an arch manipulator, a handsome courtier who was a dubious philanderer and political philosopher. His tragic flaw, as Rubens saw, was "capriciousness" -- a word chosen to hint at a goatlike and devilish shadow.

[Jack Bates · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this, I didn't know anything about George Villiers at all, and have read very little about James I as an adult. Woolley is good at reflecting the complex shenanigans of the Jacobean Court and the backstabbing and grumbling all seems endlessly familiar. Also the way James' bisexuality was dealt with by those close to him is really interesting.

I'm an idiot though and did not understand the title at all, thinking it meant 'the assassin belonging to the king' rather than 'the potential king killer'. But there we are. Was James I murdered or at least helped to his death? I didn't even know that was a rumour. I always feel a bit sorry for Charles I because his reign is a series of eventually fatal errors, well, here are some of them, plus his dad's which are similar in many ways.

A good thing - there are paintings of almost all the main characters reproduced here which is always useful, I like to see what people looked like.

I did find an error really early on though which caused me some concern, when discussing George's father's knighthood not being given by the king, well, there wasn't a king when he got it, so no wonder, eh? (In 1593 Elizabeth I had another ten years to go.)

[Katja]

RIP George Villiers, du ville have elsket Fucked My Way Up To The Top af Lana Del Rey.

[Zoe]

Finishing off all the random books I’ve started this year to reach my reading goal. This one was actually quite fascinating, and the commentary was weirdly funny. Very long but I guess you get that when it’s a complete history.

Also I can flex because I went to George Villiers grave when I was in Westminster’s Abbey.

[S S · Rating 5 out of 5]

men will literally poison their lover, start numerous foreign wars, go on a boys trip to Spain, and destabilize the government before going to therapy. love u george villiers problematic king

[Kirsty · Rating 4 out of 5]

rip george villiers😔😔😔 the og disaster bisexual (and in this case the disaster is war with spain after 20 years of peace, a civil war, and the dissolution of the monarchy #whoops)

learnt lots and lots - history is so much more interesting than i think sometimes. Also i tragically pictured him as nicholas galitzine the whole time, so now i have a crush on this lil 17th century rascal

[Siri Olsen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book exceedingly difficult to rate, and so I feel that I should preface my review with a few disclaimers upfront. Firstly, I am exceedingly well versed in this period of Stuart history, very familiar with its main actors in general, and keenly interested in Buckingham in particular. Secondly, having read extensively about the rumours surrounding Buckingham's involvement in the death of James I in other books, I already had a pre-formed opinion on the matter, with my opinion being that, while there is some circumstantial evidence both for and against, it simply does not make sense that Buckingham should have attempted anything so bold as to poison a king - a king whom he seems to have cared deeply about - in front of over a dozen trained medical professionals. And thirdly, having seen the TV series Mary & George, which is allegedly based on this book, I was very skeptical going in. My expectations were exceedingly low. Then I read the prologue and almost rage-quit right then and there. I think you have to read the prologue for yourself in order to understand why, but it is highly speculative and employs an extremely derogatory and anti-sympathetic tone in its characterisation of the Villiers family that I found incredibly off-putting. But I persisted and, to my surprise, I found the rest of the book to be not only much more nuanced in its portrayal of the main players, but also significantly better written and very well researched. The book bears very little resemblance to the TV series. It is a real historical portrait of the period and the people, based on historical fact and told in compelling and complex ways. In fact, I would actually argue that The King's Assassin is, overall, a more enjoyable and more thought-provoking read on Buckingham than The Scapegoat, which I read earlier this year.

However, with such a title, it was a surprise to find that the book itself barely deals with the question of Buckingham's guilt in the death of King James at all, to the point that the author avoids even pronouncing any kind of verdict or presenting any evidence within the main text. Instead, the discussion of what is clearly the central question of the book is relegated entirely to the epilogue. And without spoiling anything, the arguments presented by the author in support of an allegation of murder by poison are, to say the least, not compelling. As in the prologue, the tone and the historical rigidity drops completely in the epilogue, with the result that the epilogue feels disconnected to the rest of the book. It is so bad and so noticeable that I have, in full seriousness, wondered whether the prologue and the epilogue were written by a different author. It feels as though the beginning and the ending belong to a completely different book than the main text between them. It's very strange. So take the four stars for the book itself, but consider my rating of the prologue and the epilogue to be one star at best. I truly do not know what happened there, and I can't say that I've ever read anything quite like it.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Much has been written about King James I, and there is much to write.  He was the founder of the Stuart line and the first to jointly rule England and Scotland.  He will forever be known for his role in the creation of the version of the Bible that goes by his name.  You may have heard of his peculiarities of hygiene and physique - that he never bathed in his life and only occasionally washed his hands, that court observers recorded and visitors recorded seeing lice on his person if they stood too close, that his tongue was too large for his mouth causing food and drink to fall out at every meal, and that his tongue sometimes caused him difficulty in speaking (Supposedly, he is responsible for the now-standard pronunciation of the Thames as "Tims.")  You may know that much of his energy was spent in attempts to rid Britain of two evils which he thought were destroying the country:  tobacco and witchcraft.  He saw himself as a divinely appointed warrior against witchcraft and even wrote books on the subject of detecting and destroying witches.


Another great passion that consumed much of his energy was his "Royal Favorite," George Villiers.  Villiers was the most notable in a line of young and handsome men who became the closest companions, and most probably sexual partners, of James.  Villiers came from a middling aristocratic family, long past any rank or influence, but his mother groomed him to become the King's favorite, seeing the opportunity for social climbing that it represented.  Her scheming and George's charms caught the royal eye, and James was under George's influence from then on, granting George titles and powers that made others envious and resentful.  Following James' death, George continued to be a close advisor to Charles I and a powerful lord as the Duke of Buckingham.  


Benjamin Woolley's book is a detailed biography of Villiers and account of his relationship with James.  The twist here, though, is that Wooley makes the case that Villiers actually caused the death of the king. It's a very interesting story and the basis for the current TV series "Mary & George."

[V. Briceland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Your enjoyment of Benjamin Woolley's The King's Assassin may very well depend on your experience with (and tolerance for) seventeenth-century European history. I can see that anyone unfamiliar with the post-Elizabethan era might struggle with how alien are its tricky and frankly byzantine politics.

For anyone else, and for the open minded, Woolley's account of the rise and fall of George Villiers is a wild ride of intrigue and excess, kind of like a Gossip Girl 1616 or a Crazy Rich Scots, replete with same-sex desire, cunning ensnarements, unchecked social climbing, hunting with the hounds, crazy secret trips to foreign lands, scandalous romans à clef, and roller-coaster changes in fortune so extreme, the reader might experience whiplash.

While some might read the book's title and pick it up because of the promise of murder, the assassination plot itself is one of the account's slightest—really just an appendix. There's plenty of other intrigue to keep history buffs turning this book's pages.

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

First, I need to say that we don’t actually know for sure whether or not James was murdered. There were definitely some questionable circumstances surrounding his death though.
That being said, this was still a great book! It’s a detailed and interesting account of the relationship between James and George. It also provides an intriguing insight into the political maneuvering found at court.

[Abi Walton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Non-fiction I love the idea of it and learning about something new but I really struggle to stay engaged in a way that I don't with fiction. I'm proud of myself I got more than halfway through before I got bored so this is clearly a great non-fiction piece :)

In all seriousness, it was excellently written and told us the tale of James I's and his George it was interesting I am just not going to finish it

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s a truly fascinating story of King James and his “gentleman of the royal chamber” George Villiers, but this book seemed to suffer from the typical historical nonfiction malady: so much detail that it reads like an academic thesis, and it often loses the thread for what the book is actually about.

[Lindsey Geddes · Rating 3 out of 5]

The historical information in this book is top notch. A very interesting book about a pernicious favorite that is basically a manipulative narcissistic murdering pedophile. This book would be better if the writing style was not so boring. I read this before watching Mary & George on Starz which is based on this book.

[Terrance Lively · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a good piece of work that is just a little lacking. The pop nature of the history just doesn’t go to in depth. The story of the King and Duke is great but there isn’t much evidence here other than conjecture when the author finally gets to the death of James. Worth the read but limited in scope and academic fervor.

[Bonnie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting content but way too long and the writing style felt like it was just pieced together with no real continuity or direction. Probably worth a read if you are interested in that period of history...

[Brandi Henry · Rating 3 out of 5]

personally found it an easy & enjoyable read, though it felt like we lingered on the doomed spanish marriage a little too long. would have loved to hear more about james & george's relationship. interested to see if this book spikes in popularity following the show (and what they think of it).

[annie littleson · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Here lies the best and worst of Fate, Two kings’ delight, the people’s hate, The courtiers’ star, the kingdom’s eye, A man to draw an Angel by. Fear’s despiser, Villiers’ glory, The Great man’s volume, all time’s story.”

after reading this as well as watching mary & george, i cannot dispute the claims that King James was poisoned- but i’m not convinced it was George Villiers.

[Nad12 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ça faisait longtemps que j’avais pas lu un ouvrage historique c’était grave plaisant et très accessible j’ai trouvé, le personnage de George est fascinant, très hâte de voir la série Mary & George maintenant !

[Tara Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was interesting, well researched, and quite convincing.