YEAR 13 -- ELIZABETH I
Historians on Elizabeth
Interpretations
of Elizabeth I
The Traditional View
Adulation of Elizabeth, in particular her ability to
end the �mid-Tudor crisis�, control parliament and
restrain religious conflict, developed soon after her
death and was widely accepted until the mid-
1960s.
It emphasised conflict between Elizabeth and her
Parliaments and religious division as major
themes because it regarded events of Elizabeth�s
reign as a precursor to the mid-seventeenth
century conflict.
It stressed Elizabeth�s skilful management of
Parliament.
A major theme was the growth in the power of the House
of Commons at the expense of the Lords.
It stressed Elizabeth�s ability to manage the growing
religious diversity of her subjects.
The Revisionist View
Rejected the idea of a �mid-Tudor crisis� and hence
of the relative strength and skilful management
of Elizabeth�s government.
Also rejected the idea that the Civil Wars of the 1640s
had causes going back before 1637.
Rejected the idea of a progressive movement in
religious development with Puritanism challenging
religious conformity and hence the monarchy.
Emphasised a slow Reformation; Catholic survival rather
than Protestant militance was the major
ecclesiastical problem.
Rather than being self-confident, Elizabeth�s
government was deeply afraid of, in particular,
Catholic threats (especially in the 1580s).
Acknowledged the surviving importance of the nobility
in local and central government.
Rejected the growing confidence of the House of Commons
in challenging the crown.
Challenged the concept of the centrality of
factionalism in government.
The Post-Revisionist View
Examined the rule of Elizabeth from the feminist
perspective, particularly regarding the marriage
and succession questions, but also in the context of a
patriarchal society.
Undertook research into the contribution of
Elizabeth�s style and image to her dealings with
politicians.
Recognised that conflict between Queen and Parliament
was often the result of unresolved matters
between Queen and Privy Councillors.
Saw Elizabeth as a weaker monarch than either of the
other views suggest, as there were so many
constraints on her power and she had far less room for
manoeuvre than had previously been
suggested.
CLICK ON ONE OF THE LINKS BELOW
OR READ THE INFORMATION BELOW
HISTORICAL VIEWS ON ELIZABETH � synthesis
WILLIAM FOXE, Acts and Monuments (1563) � Depicted Elizabeth as being at risk during the reign of her sister Mary. Maintained that she was saved by God for the benefit of England. He was anti-Catholic and produced Foxe�s Book of Martyrs detailing the horrific treatment of Protestants under Mary.
WILLIAM CAMDEN, The History of the Most Renowned and Victorious Princess, late Queen of England (1615) � He was a professional historian and Headmaster of Westminster School. He saw things from a strongly Protestant perspective and defended Elizabeth�s achievements.
JAMES FROUDE, The History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Spanish Armada (1870-3) � Froude criticised Elizabeth because of her indifference to Protestantism. This was written at a time when religion was important and the Anglican Church was coming under threat, whilst Catholicism seemed to be attracting sympathisers. Froude believed the successes of Elizabeth�s reign were due to the sound decisions of Cecil rather than Elizabeth.
JOHN LINGARD, The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of William and Mary in 1688 (1854) � Lingard is extremely hostile to Elizabeth. He presents her as an absolute monarch, who was arbitrary, vain, excessively suspicious, and with a fierce temper. As a Catholic, Lingard may well have been influenced by Elizabeth�s religious views and policies.
JOHN NEALE, Queen Elizabeth I (1934); Queen Elizabeth and her Parliaments, 1559-1581 (1953); Queen Elizabeth and her Parliaments, 1584-1601 (1957) � Sees her as a successful monarch, after the Mid-Tudor crisis, but believes that the bedrock of the Civil War was laid during her reign as Puritanism and Parliament took off. Looking at things from a Whig perspective.
CHRISTOPHER HAIGH, Elizabeth I (1988) � Tends to be more critical of Elizabeth. Does not believe that the reigns before her were as disastrous as claimed. Think much due to Elizabethan propaganda. Elizabeth had problems. Could be indecisive, councillors often frustrated, Catholicism not eradicated under her.
SUSAN DORAN, Elizabeth I and Religion, 1558-1603 (1994); Monarchy and Matrimony: The Courtships of Elizabeth I (1996) � Believes that a balance must be struck. Elizabeth had faults but also achievements.
NEALE � Did not see them as much of a threat. Thought Puritans were driving force throughout her reign.
BOSSY � Believes that missionary priests played a vital role in shaping the English Catholic Church during Elizabeth�s reign.
HAIGH � Believes that the missionary priests had limited success. They focused on wrong areas and concentrated almost exclusively on gentry. Allowed Catholicism to survive but as a gentry religion.
DORAN � Argues that the missionary priests had limited success and that this was inevitable. Sees their failure not due to their tactics or leadership but circumstances : Elizabeth�s longevity, death of Mary Stuart, defeat of Armada. Decline gradual but inevitable as people found it easier to conform over time.
JONES � maintains that although the majority of the English still had traditional beliefs, they did not agree on the Pope�s right to lead them. Papists, as opposed to sacramental Catholics, were a minority. The supremacy passed easily and uniformity with difficulty.
NEALE �
Argues that the Puritans were the driving force behind the Settlement. Talks of
a Puritan Choir. He claims that
Parliament initially refused to pass the Settlement. Neale's claims that there
was opposition in the Commons from Puritans who wanted a more Calvinist Church.
WILLIAMS � Elizabeth was the dominant force in shaping the Settlement. Amendments made later were not result of Catholic or Puritan pressures but work of Queen herself � amendments were made by her ministers, like Francis Knollys, who was close to Elizabeth. Elizabeth would not tolerate opposition, eg sent two Marian bishops to the Tower.
JONES �
Elizabeth wanted a more Protestant settlement but had to make concessions to the
Catholics. Was determined however to keep Supremacy and Uniformity. Had to make
small concessions to Catholics however. Obtained peace by failing to make clear
definition of what the Church was. Jones
argues that there is no evidence for a cohesive Puritan opposition group in the
Commons. Instead the opposition came from Catholics in the Lords. Yet
essentially Elizabeth got what she wanted in the Settlement of 1559 and its
passage was a triumph for the Queen and the Commons.
GUY � Pressure came from Elizabeth�s ministers, especially Cecil, who was a Protestant British Imperialist � wanted to see a Protestant Britain under Elizabeth. Guy also maintains that �despite the purposeful ambiguity of the settlement of 1559�, Elizabeth�s position was not significantly different from Henry VIII�s : while she might delegate the exercise of her authority, the power was hers alone and came immediately from God.
NEALE � Argues that the Puritans were the driving force behind the Settlement. Talks of a Puritan Choir. He claims that Parliament initially refused to pass the Settlement. Neale's claims that there was opposition in the Commons from Puritans who wanted a more Calvinist Church.
WILLIAMS � Elizabeth was the dominant force in shaping the Settlement. Amendments made later were not result of Catholic or Puritan pressures but work of Queen herself � amendments were made by her ministers, like Francis Knollys, who was close to Elizabeth. Elizabeth would not tolerate opposition, eg sent two Marian bishops to the Tower.
JONES � Elizabeth wanted a more Protestant settlement but had to make concessions to the Catholics. Was determined however to keep Supremacy and Uniformity. Had to make small concessions to Catholics however. Obtained peace by failing to make clear definition of what the Church was. Jones argues that there is no evidence for a cohesive Puritan opposition group in the Commons. Instead the opposition came from Catholics in the Lords. Yet essentially Elizabeth got what she wanted in the Settlement of 1559 and its passage was a triumph for the Queen and the Commons.
GUY � Pressure came from Elizabeth�s ministers, especially Cecil, who was a Protestant British Imperialist � wanted to see a Protestant Britain under Elizabeth. Guy also maintains that �despite the purposeful ambiguity of the settlement of 1559�, Elizabeth�s position was not significantly different from Henry VIII�s : while she might delegate the exercise of her authority, the power was hers alone and came immediately from God.
CLAIRE CROSS, The Royal Supremacy in the Elizabethan Church, 1969 � Cross maintains that Philip II�s disapproval of the title of Head of the Church might also have been a serious consideration for Elizabeth in rejecting the title for Governor.
WILLIAM HAUGAARD, Elizabeth and the English Reformation, 1968 � argues that Elizabeth took being Governor of the Church very seriously and �fought passionately to establish her vision of the national church.�
DIARMAID MacCULLOCH � Elizabeth took great care to conceal her personal religious attitudes, so it is now difficult to know exactly what she preferred.
G.W. BERNARD, The Church of England � Bernard maintains that to understand the nature of the Church of England after the Settlement, one has to take into account seriously �the preferences, intentions, and compromises� of Elizabeth, and she deliberately fostered compromise and ambiguity in the settlement.
CONRAD RUSSELL, �The Reformation and the Creation of the Church of England� in Morill, ed., The Oxford Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain� � Russell suggests that Elizabeth �settled for churches that looked Catholic, and sounded Protestant ... This might have been a clever compromise ... [but] most of the leading figures in Elizabeth�s Church spent the reign itching to get rid of the half of the Church they thought did not belong ... Elizabeth thus achieved what she wanted. Yet the fact remained that this was a Church with which no one was satisfied.�
JOHN WALTER,
�The Commons and their Mental Worlds� in Morill, ed., The Oxford
Illustrated History of Tudor and Stuart Britain� � Walter suggests that
the Elizabethan Church �came perilously close to devoting as much time to the
worship of Elizabeth as to the worship of God.�
NEALE � This was the orthodox view until the 1980s when Elton and Graves began to challenge it effectively. Neale argues that the power of the Commons grew over Elizabeth�s reign, that here were several major conflicts between Elizabeth and her parliaments, which were to spill over into the Stuart period and lead to the Civil war, that he Commons grew in importance and self-confidence in Elizabeth�s reign and adopted a more sophisticated management system and came to eclipse the power and influence of the Lords, that there was an orchestrated parliamentary opposition group � the Puritan Choir � who set out to provoke confrontation over issues such as parliamentary privileges, eg freedom of speech. This group played an important role in making Elizabeth�s religious settlement more radical than she had intended and they continued to challenge or question the Queen over issues such as Mary Stuart and the privileges of parliament, and that the quality of M.P.s grew as more and more educated men entered the Commons. Neale�s view was accepted for so long as it seemed to explain the origins of the Civil war.
Neale points out several instances when Elizabeth was challenged in Parliament by the Puritans. In 1563 and 1566-67 when Elizabeth summoned Parliament to raise money to fight wars with Scotland and France, Parliament tried to force her to agree to marry. In Neale�s view, opposition to Elizabeth was organised by the Puritan Choir, with well-developed strategies. The group was led by Peter Wentworth. The Queen's response to such pressure caused Wentworth to demand freedom of speech for the Commons. Revisionsists believe instead the pressure came from the Privy Council. Their evidence is that the petition asking Elizabeth to marry was drafted by members of her Privy Council, most of whom were also members of Parliament. In 1566 it was Cecil who organised a joint delegation to the Queen.
Neale argued that there were many other attempts to use Parliament, but revisionists have questioned this. Indeed the pressure on the Queen in parliament is now seen to come from her councillors, who used parliament, rather than from any united puritan group.
ELTON � In the 1980s Elton began researching the legislative role of parliament and his research led him to question Neale�s interpretation. Elton came to believe that Parliament was keen to work in harmony with the government. Elton was followed by other revisionists like Graves. They have challenged several of Neale�s arguments. They point out that the increase in power of the Commons came in the 1530s as part of Cromwell�s reforms, yet it was still subservient to the will of the monarch, who could dismiss it at any time. The procedure for controlling the Commons was well established before Elizabeth became Queen. The Privy Council traditionally formulated policy, steered government bills through parliament and limited time-consuming speeches. Elizabeth may well have been more determined to control Parliament�s freedom of speech than her father, but then she was faced with issues that were never raised under him, such as her marriage. Nor should it be seen that parliament supported those who championed its rights : indeed it was parliament which ordered the arrest of Wentworth in 1576. A great number of laws were passed during Elizabeth�s reign and only twice did she encounter any opposition when asking for subsidies. The idea of a stronger, determined parliament does not seem to have been the case.
To back-up
his argument, Elton points out that most of parliament�s time was not taken up
with plots and confrontations, but dealing with routine matters, such as voting
subsidies and settling local grievances. He does agree that some sessions were
stormy and saw open opposition, but Neale has overplayed their importance as
even these sessions closed harmoniously, having passed the necessary
legislation. Elton sees pressure as emanating from loyal members of the Council.
Having failed to exert pressure on Elizabeth in the Council, they sought to use
parliament to act as another source of pressure on the Queen. Cecil clearly used
parliament to pressurise the Queen. When the risk of offending the Queen became
too great, Cecil, and other councillors, made use of their people in parliament.
Elton also point out how few resources Parliament actually had to oppose the
government. Elton states : �In this reign neither Lords nor Commons
constituted any sort of threat to the crown. We have heard so much about the
rising power of the Lower House ... that it comes as something of a surprise to
discover how little power the Commons especially possessed�. It remained the
case that Parliament only sat when the Queen wanted or needed it to do so, and
it was only in session for 140 weeks in a reign of over 45 years. Once the
Commons was elected and in session, the government exercised considerable
control over the agenda and the conduct of debate. The Speaker, for instance,
was invariably a crown nominee.
JONES
- Norman Jones challenged Neale�s interppreetation of an organised Puritan
choir. Research actually showed that some of them were members of the
government, were controlled by leading councillors or were actually even
Catholics.
GRAVES - Whereas Neale believed that there was coonsiderable tension between the Crown and parliament over parliamentary privileges, historians today play down such tension. Neale had argued that Paul Wentworth�s demand to be allowed to continue the debate on the succession, despite the Queen�s displeasure (1566), or the protests of his brother Peter at royal management of the House (1576) were crucial steps in the development of parliamentary privilege. Michael Graves, on the other hand, claims that such incidents were relatively insignificant, appearing as �tactless outbursts [by] loners without support�. Neale also argued that under Elizabeth the Lords was eclipsed by the Commons. Neale claimed that an examination of the proportion of legislation initiated in the Commons indicated that the Commons had become the focus of the parliamentary process. Michael Graves dismisses this and claims that the focus shifted from one chamber to another according to the location of the great ministers. Thus when Cecil sat in the Commons that was the focus of attention, but when he went to the Lords in 1572, the focus shifted with him, until it shifted back after his decline and death, when his son, Robert, exerted influence in the Commons. Morris also points out that �It also seems unwise to consider the two Houses too distinctly as separate entities. Such was the degree of patronage exercised by some of the greatest territorial magnates, men such as Bedford, Leicester and Shrewsbury, that a significant number of MPs in the Commons would have been their clients, therefore pursuing similar political and legislative agendas.�
LOADES -- David Loades accepts that the Wentworrthhs were unrepresentative of opinion in the Commons, yet feels that they provided �a genuine expression of the seriousness with which the members [of the Commons] were beginning to take their role in the formation of policy�.
MacCAFFREY, Queen Elizabeth and the Making of Policy, 1572-1588, 1981 � MacCaffrey maintains that in her dealings with Parliament �every move in the complex interplay of events was hers.�
HAIGH � Haigh maintains that Elizabeth �used the power of her personality, and the fierce personal loyalty she was able to evoke, to dissolve the political alliances which sometimes sought to coerce her.�
6. MARRIAGE AND SUCCESSION
NORMAN JONES, the Birth of the Elizabethan Age � Jones maintains that Cecil�s frustration with unmarried female rulers probably went beyond the politics of the moment, for it was common knowledge that there was something unnatural about a woman ruler. Weaker vessels in need of management, women in positions of command inverted the natural order instituted by God.
HAIGH � Haigh maintains that the pressure on Elizabeth to marry came not from the belief that the men around Elizabeth thought that women were incapable, but from the need for an heir, suggesting if that were the case, they would want to rule for her themselves, not get a king. �They sought not a consort for the Queen but a father for her son � not a sovereign, but a stud.�
7. ELIZABETH AND GOVERNMENT
GUY � Guy points out that despite Mary�s Privy Council being much larger, the actual number of working privy Councillors, that is those who attended regularly was about 19 in Mary�s reign. Mary had appointed a number of men as a means of reward for loyalty, but they did not often attend.
CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN MENU
