How secure was Elizabeth I's hold on England?

It can be argued that Elizabeth I (1559-1603) had a fairly, but never completely, secure hold on England.  She certainly faced problems and threats to her security as a ruler; these were both internal and external, political and religious.  She had rebellions to face, and threats from abroad, but with hindsight, bearing in mind that she commanded the loyalty of the majority of her subjects, these threats were rarely serious enough to place the security of her hold on England in jeopardy.  No monarch in this period (and indeed in any period in history) can ever have a totally secure hold on their country - and compared to contemporary rulers, such as the French monarchs who were facing internal religious war, her hold was quite remarkable.  The fact that she was a woman also makes it seem even more impressive.  However it is also possible that her hold on the country appears more secure than it really was, as there is such a marked contrast between the reign of her immediate predecessors, Edward VI and Mary I, and her own reign.  It must also be remembered that as France and Spain were occupied with problems of their own, England was clearly more secure than it would have otherwise been.

After the religious turmoil during the reigns of Edward and Mary, it was necessary to introduce religious stability and uniformity to the country.  Elizabeth wanted to gain the loyalty of the vast majority of her subjects as this would obviously give her a more secure hold over the country.  Her own religious beliefs "can not be pinned down", and although historians such as Haigh have seen her as a committed Protestant, her main aim does not seem to have been to further the Protestant cause but to unite her subjects "in a Church similar to that of Henry VIII, Catholic in ritual, Protestant in doctrine and looking for guidance not to Rome, Geneva or Zurich but to the ruler of England".  After Mary's reign, there was a great deal of xenophobia amongst the people of England.  Elizabeth wanted to be supreme governor of the Church as a hold over the Church would also increase the security of her hold over her subjects as they would, in theory, be loyal to her above all others.  Therefore she tried to make the Church of England acceptable to all, except the real extremes of faith, e.g. Puritans.  Her emphasis was conformity - she felt that a united church meant a united country and would therefore give her a more secure hold over the people.  By moving in a Protestant direction, she was also emphasising the difference between her reign and that of Mary.  However, the words of the Eucharist were ambiguous enough to be acceptable to a majority of people.  Catholic ritual was also retained (e.g. vestments, the position of the altar in the east) and this enabled many more to accept her Church.  It also may show that she was trying not to alienate the Catholics and drive them into opposition, as this would weaken their loyalty to her.  Foreign policy considerations were also important at this time and by displaying outward Catholic signs, (she had a crucifix in the chapel royal)  Elizabeth was also trying to maintain friendly relations with Spain.  If Spain was hostile to England then clearly the security of the country would be threatened. 

However, even though the majority were satisfied with the Church, there were threats from both Puritans and Roman Catholics which can be seen to demonstrate that her hold over England was not totally secure.  But after the previous religious crisis, it is unlikely that a monarch of England would be able to ever gain a completely secure hold.  The Puritan threat was not as great as that from the Catholics, as it was solely internal, and with hindsight, it did not really weaken her hold over England.  There were different Puritan groups and due to their lack of unity and the fact that they were in a minority, they did not pose a great threat. Field was forbidden to preach in 1572 but his behaviour had appalled many Puritans anyway.    In 1576 Grindal refused to stop prophesyings - he was Archbishop of Canterbury and if Elizabeth could not control the most important churchman, then this would limit her authority.  Grindal defended the prophesyings, but what seems more dangerous is the fact that he wrote to the Queen and informed her of the limits of her power.  However, by suspending him, Elizabeth was both increasing the security of her hold over England and showing others what would happen if she was not obeyed.

The Catholics appear to have been a greater danger to Elizabeth however, as Catholicism was also able to gain support from abroad.  Some Catholics viewed Elizabeth as illegitimate, "an incestuous bastard, begotten and born in sin", but on the whole, there was loyalty to the Queen.  Initially Elizabeth was tolerant of Catholics as she felt this would increase their loyalty to her, (she even allowed them to be on the Privy Council) thus increasing her own security, but her hold over English Catholics seemed to weaken in 1568 with the flight of Mary Queen of Scots to England.  Mary could be a focal point for all discontented Catholics, and indeed, in 1569, she was "a legitimate figurehead" for the Northern Rebellion, where the earls of Westmorland and Northumberland wanted to free her and use her to extract religious concessions from Elizabeth.  At the time, this rebellion was seen to be extremely dangerous, but in reality the rebels only had limited support, and "the feeble response showed the weakness of Catholicism".  The fact that it was crushed shows that Elizabeth did have a more secure hold on England than the rebels believed.   

In 1570, another threat to the security of Elizabeth's hold over England came with the papal bull "Regnans in Excelsis" in which Pope Pious V excommunicated her.  However, this threat was less of a danger than was perceived at the time, as although Roman Catholics in England were given the opportunity to disobey Elizabeth with papal authority, in reality, possibly due to her consideration for them in the past decade, most were loyal subjects.  The same was true of the threat from the missionaries who began to arrive in 1574 (the Jesuits, the priests from Douai and the Appellants).  They were not the threat that the government perceived them to be, as they lacked organisation, there was division within the movements, they failed to target the areas in which they might have been more successful and they did not have enough support.  Although acts were passed against them by the government in 1585, for example, they never seriously threatened the security of Elizabeth's hold on England.  As the government felt that the threat from Catholics increased, harsher laws were passed in order to counter this.  With hindsight however, it is possible to see that the Catholics did not threaten the security of Elizabeth's hold over England as much as the government at the time believed.

The one area in which Elizabeth was never secure was in finance and this had an impact on her foreign policy.  Her failure to make fundamental reforms weakened her hold on England - no monarch could ever be in a completely secure position without adequate finance.  Although the lack of war in her early reign reduced expenditure, she failed to increase customs duties and rents in line with inflation.  A poor financial position put the country in a poor military position - without money she was unable to maintain an army equal to that of rivals on the continent.  However, her foreign policy was generally defensive and she did not seek glory as former monarchs such as Henry VIII had done.  She avoided war as long as possible as this would place England in a more secure position; it was not until 1585, for example, that she went to war with Spain.   

Although Elizabeth sent aid to the Netherlands, which "was seen by Spain as an act of war", she seems to have acting simply to maintain the security of her hold over England - not out of any Protestant solidarity.  It was in her interests that the war with Spain and the Dutch rebels was ongoing as this would increase her own security - the Spanish would have their troops engaged in the conflict in the Netherlands and so would not turn their attention to England.  If Spain gained control in the Netherlands it was also a possible base from which to invade England.  It seems as if Elizabeth never gave the Dutch rebels enough help however, her underlying motive seems to have been to prolong the conflict.  It was only when Spain seemed near to victory and therefore a threat to her own security that she reacted.  It was in 1578 when a Spanish victory looked likely that she decided to support the French intervention with Anjou and again, in 1584, the assassination of William of Orange scared her into action - Leicester was sent to the Netherlands in 1585.    In order to increase her own security it was important to reduce Spanish domination in Europe.  However, it can be argued that it was partly English intervention in the Netherlands which led to the Spanish Armada.

The Armada was a real external threat, sent by Philip II, with financial assistance from Pope Sixtus V.  Relations between England and Spain had clearly deteriorated throughout Elizabeth's reign and the Armada, if successful, would have completely destroyed her hold over England.  English Catholics may have joined with the Spanish to overthrow her, and the assassination of the Protestant William of Orange had already led to fears for her own safety.  However, the Armada was defeated - in a large part due to luck - but even if the Spanish had invaded, it is still unlikely that they would have received much support from the English Catholics as xenophobia seems to have been a more important force at this time.  Therefore, it can be argued that Elizabeth had a relatively strong hold over England, even over the Catholics - in part probably because of her allowance of Catholic ritual and her limited toleration of them initially.  The external threats to her hold over England were also not as great as perceived at the time.

A criticism which has often been levelled at Elizabeth was her failure to either produce an heir herself, or to name an heir to the succession.  It was argued by her councillors that she should have done so in order to increase her own security.  However, it was by not naming an heir that Elizabeth's hold over the country was secure.  She knew that debate amongst her councillors about an heir would prove divisive, and if no heir was named, then loyalty would be focused on herself only.  She had had bitter experience of being the 'second person' in her sister's reign, and knew only too well "the inconstancy of the people of England, how they ever mislike the present government and have their eyes fixed upon that person that is next to succeed".  She refused to allow both Parliament and the Privy Council to discuss this subject and her ability to do this shows the level of control she had over her government.  Although she was not adverse to taking advice when necessary, she would allow no policy to be dictated to her.

Her refusal to marry and produce an heir herself also increased the security of her hold over England.  As a woman, any husband would have inevitably dominated and controlled policy.  If she had married a foreign prince, she would, in effect, have made a permanent choice of allies and would have lost any flexibility over foreign policy which could have placed England in a very dangerous position.  It may have become merely a province of a European power.  Marriage to an English subject could have proved to be equally dangerous however, and could have destabilised the country.  Raising one subject over the others would be likely to provoke jealousy and lead to tension and conflict.  Therefore it can be argued that by remaining single, Elizabeth was able to retain a secure hold over the country.  It was also an advantage for foreign policy as especially in the 1570s and 1580s, marriage was her "chosen weapon in diplomatic intrigue" - during the negotiations with Alen�on.

Elizabeth's control over Parliament was also important.  In order to retain a secure hold on England it was necessary to have firm control over Parliament and Elizabeth seemed to achieve this.  She had a strong belief in the royal prerogative and she refused to allow Parliament to discuss matters which she felt were to be considered by herself alone - for example,  as outlined above, the succession and her marriage.  Although she possessed very able advisors such as Cecil, she herself had the dominant role in taking decisions and even when she was advised by the whole of Parliament (apart from two MPs) to execute Mary Queen of Scots, she still refused until she personally felt it was the right time, in 1587.  It can be argued that if she had followed advice and executed Mary earlier, before she had built up such loyalty and affection amongst her subjects, then her own security could have been placed in jeopardy as she would have been setting a precedent for the future.  She would have demonstrated to her subjects that she too could be only a temporary ruler if they wished.   Elizabeth's ability to control policy in this manner demonstrates that she did have a strong hold over Parliament and therefore over England.

Another important aspect of security at this time was the control that Elizabeth and her government had over the counties of England, and the loyalty of the leading magnates.  It can be argued that in general, she was successful in this area, although the north of England was initially troublesome.  This was not unique to her reign however, as border areas were noted for their instability.  In the north Elizabeth had wanted to reduce the power of the magnates, and it was partly their exclusion from power as well as the religious reasons outlined above which led to the revolt in 1569.  Because she had excluded them, she lost their loyalty.  But the northern rising also demonstrates the loyalty of other members of the nobility, as they put down the revolt.  It was also an opportunity to subdue the north and in 1572 the Council of the North was reinstated.  By including nobles in her actions, and working with them, not against them, Elizabeth gained their support which was essential to the security of her hold over England.  She did not attack the nobility, but gained their favour by granting them privileges, e.g. tax exemption and a high social status.  Nobles also spent time at court, so Elizabeth could monitor their actions.  In 1601, although Essex rebelled, this rebellion gained very little support and was over in just twenty four hours, demonstrating once more that Elizabeth had the majority of the nobility loyal to her and able to crush revolts.

In the provinces, the Justices of the Peace had a major judicial role and government of the counties was by unpaid officials.  This may have weakened Elizabeth's hold over certain areas to an extent, as because they were not paid, the JPs often promoted their own interests and would limit the enforcement of government measures which were unpopular.  However, it can be argued that by using the system of Lord Lieutenants, (made permanent in 1585), there was an increase in security, as the Privy Council was in direct communication with them.  Many Lord Lieutenants were indeed Privy Councillors and would therefore be more likely to enforce the government policies than the JPs.  Therefore Elizabeth did achieve a relatively secure hold over the provinces. 

Propaganda also helped Elizabeth to achieve this hold.  Her propaganda policy was designed to "maximise popular loyalty to herself" - and was also designed to appeal to the ordinary person.  She went on progresses round the country, and was a public queen.  By showing herself to her people, she succeeded in gaining their loyalty - crucial to her if she was to be a secure ruler.  She also had portraits painted, containing symbols of her strength.  These were particularly important as she aged - she was still able to present a youthful image to the nation.  If she revealed how much she had aged, people would see her as weak, and she would lose support, and thus security.   The famous Rainbow Portrait also shows her with eyes and ears on her gown, this demonstrated to the people how she had her spies everywhere - she was able to see and hear everything - and helped to create the impression that she was completely in control.  Propaganda was therefore a vital tool in strengthening her hold over England, especially over the ordinary people.

To conclude, it can be argued that in general, Elizabeth's hold over the country of England was relatively secure.  Obviously total security could only ever be nothing more than a dream.  She was successful due to her ability to compromise at certain times, over religion, for example,  but also to be completely firm and determined when necessary.  Her parliaments and privy councillors could advise her, but they were never in doubt that she was always in control and had the final word - "her will was the ultimate deciding factor in every issue".  Although there were threats to the security of her hold over England, she always overcame them, due to the tremendous loyalty of her subjects.  This loyalty seems to be the most important factor when considering why she possessed this hold.  Although she lacked financial security for example, this was more than compensated for by the loyalty of her subjects.  Luck too had an important part to play - if France and Spain had not had their own problems to deal with, or if the Armada had been successful, then the future of England would have been very different. 

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO MAIN MENU