This work began life as a call to arms for the discussion of bisexuality in the era of James VI and I. In the process of development, it has come to be a consideration of early modern Scottish scholarship itself, and the ways in which the truth can be obfuscated, made wilfully opaque, implied in the margins. It is an examination of the ways in which marginalised histories are maintained in the status quo through decades of scholarship which elides the obvious, shies away from the reality of lived queer experiences, and dares not to label or name that which is discusses.

Throughout this work, the term ‘queer’ will be utilised. In considering the use of this term, the following definition becomes useful:

When we erase queerness, we do more than just flatten our historical understanding. In the case of James, we eliminate the potential for consideration of the influence of his parents, Mary, Queen of Scots and Lord Darnley. We further limit the potential for deeper analysis of the complex and stylistically nuanced work of poets such as Alexander Montgomerie. We deny the full lived experience of the people who shape these narratives. We wilfully push to the margins.

Indeed, there is an ever-present pushback against the retrospective labelling of concepts such as homosexual or indeed bisexual. Michael B. Young states in James VI and the History of Homosexuality that ‘strictly speaking, in early modern Britain, no one was a homosexual because the word, and arguably the connotations that went with it, did not exist’. As such, at no point does Young's initial study of James, one of the only studies in which James’ sexuality is the focus rather than a hushed sidenote, name James as a homosexual. Nor, it should be said at the outset, will this chapter. Instead of focusing on the labels of homosexual or bisexual, I wish to reclaim and instate the concept of queerness at the court of James and in his personal life.