Accession of Elizabeth I

At the death of Mary on November 17, 1558, Elizabeth came to the throne amid bells, bonfires, patriotic demonstrations, and other signs of public jubilation. Her entry into London and the great coronation procession that followed were masterpieces of political courtship. “If ever any person,” wrote one enthusiastic observer, “had either the gift or the style to win the hearts of people, it was this Queen, and if ever she did express the same it was at that present, in coupling mildness with majesty as she did, and in stately stooping to the meanest sort.” Elizabeth’s smallest gestures were scrutinized for signs of the policies and tone of the new regime: When an old man in the crowd turned his back on the new queen and wept, Elizabeth exclaimed confidently that he did so out of gladness; when a girl in an allegorical pageant presented her with a Bible in English translation—banned under Mary’s reign—Elizabeth kissed the book, held it up reverently, and then laid it on her breast; and when the abbot and monks of Westminster Abbey came to greet her in broad daylight with candles in their hands, she briskly dismissed them with the words “Away with those torches! we can see well enough.” Spectators were thus assured that under Elizabeth England had returned, cautiously but decisively, to the Reformation.

The first weeks of her reign were not entirely given over to symbolic gestures and public ceremonial. The queen began at once to form her government and issue proclamations. She reduced the size of the Privy Council, in part to purge some of its Catholic members and in part to make it more efficient as an advisory body; she began a restructuring of the enormous royal household; she carefully balanced the need for substantial administrative and judicial continuity with the desire for change; and she assembled a core of experienced and trustworthy advisers, including William Cecil, Nicholas Bacon, Francis Walsingham, and Nicholas Throckmorton. Chief among these was Cecil (afterward Lord Burghley), whom Elizabeth appointed her principal secretary of state on the morning of her accession and who was to serve her (first in this capacity and after 1571 as lord treasurer) with remarkable sagacity and skill for 40 years.

The woman ruler in a patriarchal world

In the last year of Mary’s reign, the Scottish Calvinist preacher John Knox wrote in his The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women that “God hath revealed to some in this our age that it is more than a monster in nature that a woman should reign and bear empire above man.” With the accession of the Protestant Elizabeth, Knox’s trumpet was quickly muted, but there remained a widespread conviction, reinforced by both custom and teaching, that, while men were naturally endowed with authority, women were temperamentally, intellectually, and morally unfit to govern. Men saw themselves as rational beings; they saw women as creatures likely to be dominated by impulse and passion. Gentlemen were trained in eloquence and the arts of war; gentlewomen were urged to keep silent and attend to their needlework. In men of the upper classes a will to dominate was admired or at least assumed; in women it was viewed as dangerous or grotesque.

Apologists for the queen countered that there had always been significant exceptions, such as the biblical Deborah, the prophetess who had judged Israel. Crown lawyers, moreover, elaborated a mystical legal theory known as “the king’s two bodies.” When she ascended the throne, according to this theory, the queen’s whole being was profoundly altered: her mortal “body natural” was wedded to an immortal “body politic.” “I am but one body, naturally considered,” Elizabeth declared in her accession speech, “though by [God’s] permission a Body Politic to govern.” Her body of flesh was subject to the imperfections of all human beings (including those specific to womankind), but the body politic was timeless and perfect. Hence in theory the queen’s gender was no threat to the stability and glory of the nation.

Elizabeth made it immediately clear that she intended to rule in more than name only and that she would not subordinate her judgment to that of any one individual or faction. Since her sister’s reign did not provide a satisfactory model for female authority, Elizabeth had to improvise a new model, one that would overcome the considerable cultural liability of her sex. Moreover, quite apart from this liability, any English ruler’s power to compel obedience had its limits. The monarch was at the pinnacle of the state, but that state was relatively impoverished and weak, without a standing army, an efficient police force, or a highly developed, effective bureaucracy. To obtain sufficient revenue to govern, the crown had to request subsidies and taxes from a potentially fractious and recalcitrant Parliament. Under these difficult circumstances, Elizabeth developed a strategy of rule that blended imperious command with an extravagant, histrionic cult of love.

The cult of Elizabeth as the Virgin Queen wedded to her kingdom was a gradual creation that unfolded over many years, but its roots may be glimpsed at least as early as 1555. At that time, according to a report that reached the French court, Queen Mary had proposed to marry her sister to the staunchly Catholic duke of Savoy; the usually cautious and impassive Elizabeth burst into tears, declaring that she had no wish for any husband. Other matches were proposed and summarily rejected. But in this vulnerable period of her life there were obvious reasons for Elizabeth to bide her time and keep her options open. No one—not even the princess herself—need have taken very seriously her professed desire to remain single. When she became queen, speculation about a suitable match immediately intensified, and the available options became a matter of grave national concern. Beyond the general conviction that the proper role for a woman was that of a wife, the dynastic and diplomatic stakes in the projected royal marriage were extremely high. If Elizabeth died childless, the Tudor line would come to an end. The nearest heir was Mary, Queen of Scots, the granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret. Mary, a Catholic whose claim was supported by France and other powerful Catholic states, was regarded by Protestants as a nightmarish threat that could best be averted if Elizabeth produced a Protestant heir.

The queen’s marriage was critical not only for the question of succession but also for the tangled web of international diplomacy. England, isolated and militarily weak, was sorely in need of the major alliances that an advantageous marriage could forge. Important suitors eagerly came forward: Philip II of Spain, who hoped to renew the link between Catholic Spain and England; Archduke Charles of Austria; Erik XIV, king of Sweden; Henry, duke of Anjou and later king of France; François, duke of Alençon; and others. Many scholars think it unlikely that Elizabeth ever seriously intended to marry any of these aspirants to her hand, for the dangers always outweighed the possible benefits, but she skillfully played one off against another and kept the marriage negotiations going for months, even years, at one moment seeming on the brink of acceptance, at the next veering away toward vows of perpetual virginity. “She is a Princess,” the French ambassador remarked, “who can act any part she pleases.”

Elizabeth was courted by English suitors as well, most assiduously by her principal favorite, Robert Dudley, earl of Leicester. As master of the horse and a member of the Privy Council, Leicester was constantly in attendance on the queen, who displayed toward him all the signs of an ardent romantic attachment. When in September 1560 Leicester’s wife, Amy Robsart, died in a suspicious fall, the favorite seemed poised to marry his royal mistress—so at least widespread rumors had it—but, though the queen’s behavior toward him continued to generate scandalous gossip, the decisive step was never taken. Elizabeth’s resistance to a marriage she herself seemed to desire may have been politically motivated, for Leicester had many enemies at court and an unsavory reputation in the country at large. But in October 1562 the queen nearly died of smallpox, and, faced with the real possibility of a contested succession and a civil war, even frival factions were likely to have countenanced the marriage.

Probably at the core of Elizabeth’s decision to remain single was an unwillingness to compromise her power. Sir Robert Naunton recorded that the queen once said angrily to Leicester, when he tried to insist upon a favor, “I will have here but one mistress and no master.” To her ministers she was steadfastly loyal, encouraging their frank counsel and weighing their advice, but she did not cede ultimate authority even to the most trusted. Though she patiently received petitions and listened to anxious advice, she zealously retained her power to make the final decision in all crucial affairs of state. Unsolicited advice could at times be dangerous: when in 1579 a pamphlet was published vehemently denouncing the queen’s proposed marriage to the Catholic duke of Alençon, its author, John Stubbs, and his publisher William Page were arrested and had their right hands chopped off.

Elizabeth’s performances—her displays of infatuation, her apparent inclination to marry the suitor of the moment—often convinced even close advisers, so that the level of intrigue and anxiety, always high in royal courts, often rose to a feverish pitch. Far from trying to allay the anxiety, the queen seemed to augment and use it, for she was skilled at manipulating factions. This skill extended beyond marriage negotiations and became one of the hallmarks of her regime. A powerful nobleman would be led to believe that he possessed unique influence over the queen, only to discover that a hated rival had been led to a comparable belief. A golden shower of royal favor—apparent intimacies, public honors, the bestowal of such valuable perquisites as land grants and monopolies—would give way to royal aloofness or, still worse, to royal anger. The queen’s anger was particularly aroused by challenges to what she regarded as her prerogative (whose scope she cannily left undefined) and indeed by any unwelcome signs of independence. The courtly atmosphere of vivacity, wit, and romance would then suddenly chill, and the queen’s behavior, as her godson Sir John Harington put it, “left no doubtings whose daughter she was.” This identification of Elizabeth with her father, and particularly with his capacity for wrath, is something that the queen herself—who never made mention of her mother—periodically invoked.

A similar blend of charm and imperiousness characterized the queen’s relations with Parliament, on which she had to depend for revenue. Many sessions of Parliament, particularly in the early years of her rule, were more than cooperative with the queen; they had the rhetorical air of celebrations. But under the strain of the marriage-and-succession question, the celebratory tone, which masked serious policy differences, began over the years to wear thin, and the sessions involved complicated, often acrimonious negotiations between crown and commons. More radical members of Parliament wanted to include in debate broad areas of public policy; the queen’s spokesmen struggled to restrict free discussion to government bills. Elizabeth had a rare gift for combining calculated displays of intransigence with equally calculated displays of graciousness and, on rare occasions, a prudent willingness to concede. Whenever possible, she transformed the language of politics into the language of love, likening herself to the spouse or the mother of her kingdom. Characteristic of this rhetorical strategy was her famous “Golden Speech” of 1601, when, in the face of bitter parliamentary opposition to royal monopolies, she promised reforms:

I do assure you, there is no prince that loveth his subjects better, or whose love can countervail our love. There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel; I mean, your love: for I do more esteem of it, than of any treasure or riches.

A discourse of rights or interests thus became a discourse of mutual gratitude, obligation, and love. “We all loved her,” Harington wrote with just a trace of irony, “for she said she loved us.” In her dealings with parliamentary delegations, as with suitors and courtiers, the queen contrived to turn her gender from a serious liability into a distinct advantage.