Buckingham's Bio

Saturday-Sunday, February 22-23, 2025

Buckingham’s Bio

Book report: The Scapegoat: The Brilliant Brief Life of the Duke of Buckingham, by Lucy Hughes-Hallet (2024)

The first thing to say about this book is that, although the life of George Villiers, 1^st Duke of Buckingham – well, kinda: there had been Dukes of Buckingham of the Stafford family from 1444 to 1523, before the title was revived for George Villiers in 1623 – lasted only 35 years (August 20, 1592 – August 23, 1628), this book about him is 680 pages long. Fortunately, it moves right along, with chronological narration of Buckingham’s life interrupted by topical sections such as “Clothes”, “Houses”, and “Babies” that bring the milieu more to life without bogging down the narrative with digression.

George Villiers, of a modest country gentry family, was an extraordinarily handsome and charming young man who, at the age of 22, was pimped to King James I by a political faction seeking influence over the king.

Equestrian portrait of Duke of Buckingham, Peter Paul Rubens, 1625, public domain via Wikipedia

People have different tastes, of course, but contemporaneous sources, including those who hated him, all agreed that he had a handsome face and a great build and was an outstanding horseman and dancer, having studied both skills in France. He was also likeable: cheerful, agreeable, modest, kind, lively … all around good company. Historians debate the extent to which his love affair with James I involved sex acts – documents use very oblique language – but it is clear that they were intimate and mutually devoted to one another until James’s death. James I had a desperate need for affection, and he was fond of Buckingham’s mother, sister, wife, and other relations as well as the man himself.

The early 17^th century is considered “early modern,” and there are many elements of government and society that have analogues today. Although I hate to bring up the current president, the Trump-Musk menage is strongly reminiscent of the relationship between a king and his “favourite.” The role of “favourite” included acting on behalf of the ruler in a variety of areas of government, often without holding an official position. It could also be a gatekeeper position: if a nobleman wanted something from James I (and later Charles I), the way to get it was to pay off Buckingham or his relatives. Loyalty and personal appeal to the ruler, rather than competence in government, were the qualifications.

In spite of having been chosen for his personal charms, Buckingham was, through much of his career, pretty effective as a “fixer” of sorts. For all his emotional quirks, James I was a very sharp administrator whose main goal was to keep England out of wars and establish sound finances. At this, he was largely successful. This made him unpopular, because the country wanted wars, wanted to fight the Spanish or the French and give the Pope a thumb in the eye. James I thought they were fools. Buckingham assisted him in negotiations with European powers and helped to modernize the bureaucracy and especially the Navy.

Unlike his father, Charles I thought a war would be fun. Unfortunately, he blew most of the country’s savings plus his French wife’s dowry on a stupid effort to fight in what is now Germany. After that, there were additional stupid attacks on Spain and coastal France. Buckingham was deeply involved in these efforts and kept doing the same wrong thing over and over again. Having grown incredibly wealthy, he also grew less self-aware, appearing in silk and pearls with an entourage of musicians and servants while survivors of his idiotic military gambits were starving in the streets.

Buckingham’s military failures and Charles I’s marriage to a Catholic (French princess Henrietta Maria) put both of them on the wrong side of Parliament, which was heavy with Puritan-leaning Protestants who were serious about the rights of Parliament and of English subjects in general. Charles I thought Magna Carta was just some guidelines, open to (his) interpretation, but the House of Commons wasn’t having it. In April of 1628, Charles summoned Parliament because he needed money, again, and they arrived ready for a Constitutional showdown.

“The resolutions were drafted. They were succinct. That no one was to be imprisoned, even at the King’s command, without cause shown. That habeas corpus must be respected. That no tax, loan, or benevolence was to be levied without Parliamentary consent.” (p. 579) According to Sir Edward Coke, who had been imprisoned without trial for objecting to an illegal tax, “The greatest inheritance that a man hath is the liberty of his person. A prison without a prefixed time is a kind of hell.”

In a phrase eerily similar to one quoted by a current president, Charles countered that he agreed to the resolutions, unless “matters of state” caused him to decide otherwise. You don’t need a legally drafted resolution affirming the citizens’ rights, he said. “You shall find as much security in His Majesty’s royal word and promise as in the strength of any law ye can make.” (p. 584) Parliament said “no dice” on the taxes, and Charles dissolved the session.

A few months after these events, Buckingham would be murdered by a disabled survivor of one of his military adventures, a gloomy Calvinist of a social levelling bent. Charles I, completely missing the message, would be deposed and executed by Parliament in 1649. The English Civil War is covered in vivid detail in the Revolutions podcast.

Although the author contends, beginning with the title page, that Buckingham was a “scapegoat,” blamed for things that were really the King’s fault, I think the facts she lays out give him plenty of guilt of his own, especially for tens of thousands of deaths and much more misery due to his military incompetence.

What can we at CSLF learn from all of this? Well, concentration of power in the hands of unaccountable and unelected individuals is bad. The citizens’ elected representatives should get off social media and take up the burden of defending the Constitutional rights of their constituents. Religious tolerance beats the heck out of the alternative. Everyone gets tired of Big Cheeses acting all superior.

I’m sure there’s much more.