Would you have ever guessed that the inspiration behind 007’s James Bond was a Dominican man? Probably not, especially given the controversy that came after the idea of possibly having the first black 007. Lawyer and historian, Daniel J. Voelker, aims to prove otherwise in a new article he penned, Will The Real James Bond Please Stand Up, which states that the Dominican socialite, Porfirio Rubirosa, was Ian Fleming’s muse for creating the world renowned Bond.
Rubirosa, also known as Rubi, was a Dominican diplomat during Trujillo’s dictatorship. He was also a prominent ladies’ man, and married a slew of high profile women, including: Trujillo’s daughter and French actresses Danielle Darrieux, Odile Rudin, Doris Duke and Barbara Hutton, according to The New York Times. He was known as a classic man with an affinity for the finer things in life—like fast cars, and always having lavish club nights accompanied by Frank Sinatra and Aly Khan.
In a press release for his article, Voelker states why he feels Fleming used Rubirosa as an inspiration for Bond’s character: “Two of the main focal points can be found through internationally famous celebrities Errol Flynn and Noel Coward. Friends with both Fleming and Rubirosa, these two lived between Fleming and Rubirosa in the Caribbean, traveled and partied with both of them and even shared a ‘love connection’ through certain well known women, including Rita Hayworth and Eva Perón.”
The Chicago native also compares his article to an infographic, which shows how similar Bond’s life was to Rubirosa. Throughout the years there has been much speculation on who exactly inspired the character, yet Voelkner predicts that Fleming never revealed a name because of Rubirosa’s ethnic background.
“Fleming was restrained from identifying Rubirosa as his inspiration, as that would have created unwanted liabilities and may have put an end to what would become the most successful movie franchise in history,” Voelker explains.“Moreover, given Rubirosa’s Creole or mixed racial background, Fleming’s audience in the 1950s and early 60s may not, unfortunately, have been very accepting of such a revelation.”
Accepting or not, the evidence seems eerily accurate, no?