With regards to religion many people have considered Elizabeth I to be the monarch who solved the problems that were caused by the previous Tudor monarchs but was her Religious Settlement all it was cracked up to be, this panacea that would restore religious peace to England. Some considered Elizabeth's religious settlement to be a way of hiding from making harsh decisions and showed how indecisivness at the start of a reign ultimately leads to harsher sanctions being placed later on in the same reign.
Again, with marriage and the succession, did Elizabeth actually just hide away from making a decision that might upset people in the country and abroad. Would she have been better off chosing either a husband or a successor early on in her reign, therefore leaving her time to mend the burned bridges of this marriage in time for any off-spring to enjoy a smooth accession to the throne.
Whatever opinion we have built up about Queen Elizabeth I, she is such a controversial and enigmatic figure that she gives young historians plenty of material to discuss and debate and help build their historical skills.
Our interpretation of Elizabeth
ReplyDeleteChloé and Emily.
Overall we think that Elizabeth dealt with things well as they came, rather than thinking long term and how decisions would affect overall outcomes.
An example of Elizabeth dealing with things last minute is the Northern Rebellion. Elizabeth knew that she had issues with the North; however, she didn’t push to go up there herself and sort these problems out. Instead she waited until tensions grew, leading to the Northern Rebellion. It is evident that Elizabeth dealt with the Northern rebellion effectively and quickly, however, once the rebellion was crushed she didn’t go out of her way to solve the triggering factors that led to the rebellion. This shows that in the short term she dealt with the problems of the north, as she crushed the rebellion, yet she didn’t enforce anything to keep a long term relationship between the North and South.
Another problem was the succession. Other monarchs such as Henry VI and Mary I named their successors and avoided any issues that this topic could cause as they named their successor early. However, Elizabeth refused to name her successor on many occasions. This benefited Elizabeth as it gave her an element of power and authority. However, due to not naming a successor it led to problems with both the Catholics and Protestants. Whilst potential Catholic monarch were present, such as Mary and to some extent, James, there was a hope and a motive for the Catholics to overthrow or kill Elizabeth, as they would automatically be seen as the next inline as the legitimate leader. As well as there being a Catholic threat, a Protestant pressure was evident. Due to the fact that Mary would be more than likely to be Queen if Elizabeth were to be taken off of the throne, the Protestants wanted a sense of stability, knowing a Protestant leader was the named successor. As well as this, Parliament were eager for answers. They wanted to know what to do in the event of something happening to Elizabeth. When Elizabeth got ill, this problem of there being no successor became a highly important issue. Yet, Elizabeth was arrogant in the fact that even when she got better from nearly dying, she still banned the topic of the Successor being spoken about and still did not name someone to take over from her in the future.
Unlike Mary 1 she was a better-rounded person with justified opinions. She was admired by more people than those who hated her!
ReplyDeleteShe ruled like any other King in the past, but used her femininity to gain supporters which was a smart move from her! She was just as mentally strong and ruthless as monarchs before her and ruled in a similar was to her father. She was educated in a manner nobody would except for a woman. Her step-mother Katherine Parr took on the responsibility of making sure she was educated in the art of Public Speaking. She also studied Greek and Latin which further develop her to becoming a much more intelligent and ideal monarch.
When she was crowned queen, one of her main priorities was the religion of the country. She declared England was to practise Protestantism but Catholicism was still permitted if practised in privacy. This made her seem to be a queen who respected the ideas and religions of others and wasn't completely driven by her own beliefs.
Elizabeth was so devoted to her country that she continuously refused to get married. She claimed that 'the Kingdom of England is my husband.' However, she was still amused by the company of men and flirtation was a shortcut to get things her way. She also believed that the welfare of the country was her priority and marriage was barely on her mind, and informed Parliament to stay out of her personal life which we believe made her seem ignorant as she did not think of the potential problems with not having an heir.
Interpretation of Elizabeth - Asher and Jerry
ReplyDeleteI think that Elizabeth was a successful Queen because she listened to others but made her own decisions. Elizabeth used parliament in order to get what she wanted. She dealt with problems such as religion well because even though she created a protestant national religion she still kept some features of the Catholic religion such as vestments. I agree with Graves that opposition from either side, I don’t think were very strong, and didn’t represent a prominent threat for Elizabeth, Graves states that ‘ where there were clashes, they were no long term significance mostly because the opposition was neither organised nor strong enough to prevent a serious challenge to the Queen’. Elizabeth didn’t receive as much religious opposition because she included elements from both religions and that this was a half-way point between Catholicism and the Protestantism, and she dealt with problems concerning religion quickly so that they didn’t get out of hand, increasing the anti-Catholic laws in order to limit its development. Although Elizabeth ignored councillor’s advice and overlooked calls for her to marry, have children, or name a successor. I believe that Hurstfield is right in his opinion that ‘marriage and motherhood would temporarily limit the authority and power to rule- still would hate this’, and believe that this supports my opinion that Elizabeth was a good Queen because she focused on the running the country and holding the crown, but she did not spend enough time thinking about succession and the future, what would happen after her reign had ended.
Simon Scharma says 'Mary was nothing but a common whore' in his documentry a histrory of Britan
ReplyDeleteLots of different interpretations of other monarchs too!
ReplyDelete