The Stuart court perfected the art of moral theatre. Outwardly, it draped itself in piety, ceremony, and the language of divine right; behind the velvet curtains, it operated according to an entirely different script. Favourites rose and fell on the strength of whispered alliances, royal mistresses shaped policy as effectively as ministers, and the rhetoric of godly kingship masked a world driven by appetite, ambition, and carefully managed secrecy.
Behind the Velvet Curtains. Scandal at the Hypocritical Stuart Court
Wikimedia Commons. Public domain.
Author: Rs-nourse. Accessed 5 February 2026.
Behind the velvet curtains of the Stuart courts lay a world far removed from the piety they proclaimed. James VI & I faced whispered charges of sodomy, Charles II and James II & VII as royal brothers were condemned for their unabashed lasciviousness, and even Queen Anne was the subject of salacious rumours about her female favourites.
Despite this swirl of scandal, the Stuarts clung to their roles as Supreme Governors of the Church of England and upheld the public posture of moral guardianship. It was a court where absolutist monarchs preached virtue while living lives that made a mockery of it. A dynasty whose private excesses sat uneasily beside the divine‑right authority they claimed.
This article looks at the contradiction of the Stuart court, where public virtue and vice coexisted openly. Writers and artists criticized the King and the court, but usually in subtle ways. Even exile couldn’t protect the Stuarts, and by the end of their dynasty, they faced as much ridicule as they once drew.
Robert Herrick and the Spirit of Carpe Diem
Robert Herrick (1591–1674), one of the Cavalier poets, captured the Restoration mood in his famous lines.
“Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a‑flying;
And this same flower that smiles today,
Tomorrow will be dying.”
This “Carpe Diem” or “Seize the moment”, philosophy resonated after the austerity of Cromwell’s rule. The Restoration court embraced indulgence, and poets used humour and satire to critique its excesses. Seizing the moment is a way of saying “It’s later than you think”.
James VI and I (1566-1625) and allegations of Sodomy
James VI of Scotland, crowned James I of England in 1603, was accused of “unnatural vice” by hostile commentators. Evidence wasn’t required. We should never forget the the ability of English writers to lament a Scot on their throne and holding the thrones of England and Scotland and Ireland in personal union. His favourites included.
- Esmé Stewart, Duke of Lennox (d. 1583)
- Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset (c.1587–1645)
- George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham (1592–1628)
James’s letters to Villiers, calling him “my sweet child and wife,” were seized upon by critics.
- Anthony Weldon (1583–1648), in The Court and Character of King James I (1650), mocked James as “the wisest fool in Christendom.”
- Francis Osborne (1593–1659), in Traditional Memoirs (1658), accused James of effeminacy.
- Edward Peyton (1588–1656) claimed James was “chiefe noted for the vice of sodomy.”
Pamphlets and libels circulated in London, portraying the Scottish Jacobean court as thoroughly corrupt. A Latin epigram sneered. “Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus” (“Elizabeth was King, now James is Queen”) [1] . No evidence was required; allegation alone was enough to undermine royal dignity.
Restoration Satire and Literary Commentary
The English Civil War and Restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 unleashed a torrent of satire. Writers seized upon contradictions in the Restoration court. Hedonism, political intrigue, and disregard for Puritan restraint.
- Richard Crashaw (1612–1649), though primarily devotional, used epigrams to critique hypocrisy.
- John Dryden (1631–1700), in Absalom and Achitophel (1681), cast Monmouth as Absalom, exposing ambition and treachery.
- Alexander Pope (1688–1744), in The Rape of the Lock (1712), mocked aristocratic frivolity, echoing Restoration obsessions.
Charles II (1630-1685). Marriage as Transaction, Mistresses as Power
Charles II’s marriage to Catherine of Braganza (1662) was transactional. Bombay and Tangier were delivered as dowry, expanding England’s empire. The union produced no heirs, but mistresses filled Whitehall with scandal.
- Lucy Walter, mother of James Scott, Duke of Monmouth.
- Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland, mother of Henry FitzRoy, 1st Duke of Grafton
- Nell Gwyn, actress, mother of Charles Beauclerk.1st Duke of St Albans
- Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, mother of Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond
- Catherine Pegge, mother of Charles FitzCharles, 1st Earl of Plymouth
- Moll Davis, actress, mother of Lady Mary Tudor, by marriage Countess of Derwentwater
Charles acknowledged at least eleven illegitimate children. Diana, Princess of Wales, is among his descendants.
Contemporaries were scandalised. John Evelyn (1620–1706) sighed that Charles “would have been an excellent prince, had he been less addicted to women.” Ballads sneered.
“The King’s new mistress, Madam Carwell,
Does French designs in England sell.”
James II and VII (1633-1701). Piety and Hypocrisy
His Catholicism was kept relatively quiet at first, but by the 1670s it became a major political issue.
The Test Act of 1673, which required officeholders to take Anglican communion, forced James to resign as Lord High Admiral, exposing his Catholic faith.
James II and VII crowned in 1685 and formally converted to Catholicism in 1669, while still Duke of York. This conversion alarmed Protestant England, where Catholicism was widely distrusted due to memories of Mary I’s reign and fears of absolutist rule. When James became king in 1685, his Catholicism was a central cause of tension. It fuelled the Monmouth Rebellion (1685)
- First marriage. Anne Hyde, mother of Mary II (1662-1694), Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland and Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland
- Second marriage. Mary of Modena, inflaming Protestant fears.
Mistresses included…..
- Arabella Churchill, mother of Henrietta FitzJames, James FitzJames (Duke of Berwick), Arabella FitzJames, and Charles FitzJames.
- Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, famed for her wit, quipped James “made love like an oyster.”
Pamphlets mocked his hypocrisy.
“He prays with beads, yet lies with maids,
The King’s devotion quickly fades.”
Satire and Public Opinion
The Restoration was an age of gossip. Coffee‑houses buzzed, and printers churned out lampoons.
- Nell Gwyn was celebrated as the “Protestant whore.”
- Louise de Kérouaille was damned as the “Catholic whore.”
- Samuel Pepys (1633–1703) recorded gossip, noting in 1668 that “the King do tire all his mistresses.”
- Andrew Marvell (1621–1678) lampooned corruption in Last Instructions to a Painter.
- John Aubrey (1626–1697) included ironic anecdotes in Brief Lives.
A Court of Indulgence
The Stuart court was drenched in scandal and often resembled the Bourbon court of Versailles. Charles flaunted mistresses, James concealed affairs, but neither escaped the relentless churn of gossip. Their bedchamber intrigues were immortalised in ballads, broadsides, and diaries.
From James VI & I’s whispered passions for male favourites to Charles II’s parade of mistresses and James II’s Catholic duplicities, the dynasty lived under a cloud of sexual rumour. Whether homosexual or heterosexual, their reputations were shaped less by evidence than by pamphlets, lampoons, and the public appetite for scandal. Behind the velvet curtains, allegation was enough. Henry Benedict, Cardinal York suffered under the allegations of homosexual impropriety at his Palazzo. The allegations made ever so discreetly by Gorani.
In the end, absolutism offered the Stuarts no protection. The divine‑right authority they claimed only sharpened the contrast between their absolutist public piety and private excess. By the time their dynasty collapsed, the world had tired of monarchs who preached virtue while living otherwise, a reminder that even the most powerful courts can be undone by the stories told about them.
FAQ
The Stuarts projected an image of divine kingship and moral authority, yet their courts were marked by factional intrigue, sexual scandal and political manipulation. This contrast between public piety and private excess created a reputation for hypocrisy that contemporaries commented on frequently. The court’s moral contradictions became part of its political identity.
Scandals ranged from illicit relationships and courtly rivalries to accusations of corruption, favouritism and secret religious sympathies. These episodes were amplified by pamphleteers, foreign observers and political opponents, who used them to question the monarchy’s credibility. The result was a court culture where personal behaviour and political consequence were tightly intertwined.
Rumours and revelations fed a growing sense that the court was out of touch with ordinary subjects and morally compromised. This perception contributed to wider political tensions, influencing debates about authority, legitimacy and the role of monarchy. The scandals became part of the narrative that framed the Stuarts as rulers whose private conduct undermined their public claims.
Mes remerciements à Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) pour avoir mis ces images du domaine public à disposition. Leur engagement en faveur de la préservation et du partage des collections historiques enrichit un travail comme celui‑ci. – My thanks to Gallica (Bibliothèque nationale de France) for making these public‑domain images available. Their commitment to preserving and sharing historical collections enriches work like this