Queen James review: Gareth Russell’s documentary explores the male lovers of Britain’s first king

A new documentary titled Queen James, adapted by historian Gareth Russell from his book Queen James: The Life and Loves of Britain’s First King, delves into the reign of James I of England and VI of Scotland, focusing on his relationships with male favourites. The film argues that while James’s contemporaries freely observed and even mocked his romances—coining the nickname “Queen James”—later Victorian historians suppressed discussion of the king’s sexuality, making it less widely known today. Russell draws on abundant primary sources, including James’s own letters, to present a narrative that is both salacious and nuanced.

The documentary chronicles James’s life from his early reign as king of Scotland to his accession to the English and Irish thrones in 1603. Central to the story are his two principal male lovers: Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, who won the king’s favour after breaking his leg in a jousting match, and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham, who later replaced Carr. The narrative builds toward the 1616 trial of Carr for murder, a moment that threatened to expose the king’s intimate affairs. Russell also examines the role of Sir Thomas Overbury, Carr’s secretary, who served as the political brain behind the favourite.

Russell, supported by fellow historians in archives and stately homes, explores the complexities of James’s personality—from his happy fathering of multiple children with his wife, Anne of Denmark, to his public condemnation of “sodomy” in a moral treatise. The documentary highlights the cultural attitudes of the early 1600s, where male same-sex affection was often idealized as pure but remained ambiguous about physical acts. Director John O’Rourke employs an unusual technique: actor James McArdle reads James’s letters in a cold room, his breath misting as he delivers lines that blend political authority with personal vulnerability.

The film presents James as an “intellectually brilliant and emotionally traumatised” ruler, shaped by a troubled upbringing and a penchant for spin. It underscores the tension in his relationships—favourites could never be sure if they were loved for themselves or for access to power, and James himself never knew if his lovers were genuine or merely opportunistic. Queen James is described as a perspicuous, gossipy yet not prurient account that sharpens modern sensibilities without erasing 17th-century mores.