Elizabeth I is by many historians considered one of England's very best ever monarchs, which heralded the 'golden time' in English background. Her forty-five time reign was constantly under danger, which makes the actual fact that she was able to get over these for forty-five years even more exceptional. She could fight off disorder, rebellions, and wars with other countries. Hostility also originated from those who believed a woman cannot rule a country because of their inferiority to men, and most of the men she caused shared this view. "For a female ruler, mere survival was a significant success. " She can be considered lucky to attended to the throne of England by any means, being the illegitimate little girl of Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn, and therefore losing the promise to the English throne.
Therefore we must consider to what level it was the Queen's activities and decisions that led her too overcome dangers as opposed to her council and parliament making the decisions on her behalf. There is also debate concerning whether it was because of the skill of the monarch and her ability as Queen to beat these hazards, or whether it was down more to luck than judgement. Was she pragmatic in her replies, or "not of "the fantastic", but of the lucky"? To judge this her success needs to be measured resistant to the weakness of the hazard and other factors outside her control.
One of the first hazards Elizabeth was required to prevail over was in 1562 when she contracted smallpox. Not only did this disease employ a real chance of getting rid of Elizabeth, she constantly refused to name a successor regarding her death. This can be regarded as a very skilful, tactical decision made by Elizabeth, as she was aware that "men would undoubtedly rally to the nominee, and may even plot treason to secure an early on succession", that could describe why she never name a successor to the throne, even on her deathbed. On the other hand, this can be viewed as an avoidance of problems; "Her refusal to handle the succession concernshowed how limited was her matter for future years". This critical view from Haigh of Elizabeth completely ignores the view of Lotherington's, and shows that if Elizabeth had called a successor, this might show more concern for the future. This may be true; however, I believe Lotherington's argument is stronger because it suggests why she didn't name a successor. She did not want to compromise her own protection or peace in England, which demonstrates that she does have matter about the near future. I believe it was credited to concern on her behalf safety and calmness in England, and then the avoidance of any possible danger against her which recommended she didn't name a successor to the throne, and therefore runs against Haigh's argument that she had no concern for the future of the country. Therefore I assume that not naming a successor was the right move to make. The fact that she eventually overcame smallpox was certainly down to a medication dosage of good luck for Elizabeth, which in conjunction with the fact that she arrived to the British throne despite being illegitimate in the eye of Catholics demonstrates that she was certainly blessed to some extent, plus some of the success of her reign can be credited partly to luck.
The war against Spain and the armada was one of the very most serious risks Elizabeth had to deal with. Relations between England and Spain deteriorated during Elizabeth's time, after many years of a strong alliance. Finally, she was successful in dealing with the risk, though whether this was down to Elizabeth's judgement can be questioned. It also needs to be considered that Elizabeth's foreign policy was not intended to be intense, and wars were normally averted wherever possible. Although eventually Elizabeth was successful in defeating Spain, Brimacombe believes that it was the "result of the spectacular failing of foreign policy" that resulted in war to begin with, so can be argued that Elizabeth was not able to achieve a peaceful foreign policy, and so was not skilful in this value. However I would disagree with this by arguing that her international insurance policy, although never designed for war, was one of national security throughout her reign. Murphy says "The primary foreign policy aim was nationwide security. This is anchored. " This I would agree with, as the alliance with Spain for much of the Tudor period was for Great britain to an scope down to national security, and so while the ways of achieving this is viewed as inconsistent, the goals of Elizabeth can't, and so I believe that it is unfair to criticise Elizabeth for having a lack of direction in international policy.
When taking a look at the armada itself, assessing whether success emerged down to skill is more debatable. One view is the fact that due to the superior British weaponry and tactics, England could achieve success. One online source cases it was "Howard's sorted out strategic respond to the threat intended that many - like the Spanish - were surprised that the challenge wasn't won even more quickly. " Some however would argue that it was down to Spain's misfortune that resulted in their defeat. Lotherington argues that "The fierce Atlantic galesinduced almost all Spanish deficits". Brimacombe, when talking about the Spanish commander, will abide by Lotherington, declaring, "Ultimately, it was mainly his insufficient good fortune that was to prove his downfall. " As their boats were much bigger and heavier, they were struggling to manoeuvre as quickly and change strategies in response to the circumstances and business lead to defeat. I believe that the defeat of the armada can be put down to both of these views. Whilst it is true that factors beyond Spain's control were against them, such as climate, it is equally true to say that the strategies used by Great britain made the best of these factors. This can be confirmed in the Struggle of the Gravelines, where the English ships forced the Spanish northwards. While both these views can be studied be viewed as reverse reasons regarding the end result of the Spanish Armada, it can also be seen as being down partly to the skill of the English, and partly right down to the bad luck of the Spanish. I recommend that it was more right down to the bad luck of the Spanish that gained Great britain victory, as with no strong winds that ruined the Spanish ships after the Struggle of Gravelines it is possible that the Spanish could have returned for another invasion, as England were anticipating. Whilst the website advises skill was the primary reason for the English victory, it neglects the high number of fatalities and lack of ships which limits the skill conveyed. "Sickness and morality begin to grow wonderfully included in this", written by Howard, commander of the British fleet, illustrates the deficits the English confronted, and so which means defeat of the armada can't be considered a totally skilful success.
However, whichever view you take, it is difficult to argue that the success was right down to Elizabeth's skill privately. Unlike her dad and other monarchs of that time period, Elizabeth played a restricted part in matters of warfare and battles, therefore even though success possibly could have come down to the abilities and strategies of the victors, it is unfair to state which it shows a great deal of skill on Elizabeth's part. "Elizabeth was to play no personal partshe had not been destined to lead her soldiers into challenge, and was therefore unable to exercise any direct control once hostilities had begun". Although this view can be argued by stating that it was Elizabeth's choice concerning who commanded the navy, because I don't assume that the Armada was triumphed in entirely because of England's skill I would suggest this is of limited relevance in judging Elizabeth's skill, and certainly doesn't better it. Whilst the challenge resistant to the Armada was successful, the limited participation of the Queen and indeed her 'indecisiveness' in issues demonstrates little success or skill on her behalf part.
When looking at threats to Elizabeth and her reign, Mary Queen of Scots was one of the very most difficult she got to cope with, as the most powerful claimant to the British throne, and the legitimate Queen in the eye of Catholics. After years of being organised as Elizabeth's prisoner, and being involved with Catholic plots against her, Elizabeth had to do her in 1587 to be able to ensure her own life is not vulnerable. The Connection of Supremacy shows how a lot of a risk Elizabeth thought her to be. However, was Elizabeth right to perform her when she do, or do her hesitancy show a lack of skill? The success of Elizabeth's spiritual reforms must also be judged.
Elizabeth's religious pay out was one of Protestantism, but tolerance towards Catholics: "Not liking to make glass windows into men's souls and top secret thoughts", so was considered mindful and conservative. This can be considered a safe strategy employed by Elizabeth to defend her positions and stop the likelihood of a civil war, in that way looking to avoid threats, or as Brimacombe argues, "in deciding to steer a middle course between your old opinion and the new theological thinking, the Queen risked significant criticism from both sides". Plainly, the arrival of Mary Queen of Scots in Britain intended that even though this spiritual settlement was an attempt to secure Elizabeth's position to the throne, the changing of British religious beliefs was too fearless to travel unchallenged from Catholics and followers of Mary. The Rebellion of North earls is seen as one example of this. However, there exists little question that the inability of the is not down to Elizabeth's replies to it, however the fact that it "lacked company and way", as Murphy implies. Lotherington will abide by this point, suggesting "the rising had failed through its incoherence and aimlessnessand a distress over the precise religious aims. " Therefore the events of the rebellion and final result of it could be due more to weakness of the opposition, and therefore good fortune for Elizabeth, instead of any apparent skill.
The Ridolfi and Babington plots are further types of makes an attempt to overthrow Elizabeth, but Elizabeth's reaction to the Ridolfi story can be seen as unskilful, and incredibly reactive, as even after the make an effort of overthrowing her with Spanish support, she still "defying the frustrating majority in both the Council and the Parliament refused even to agree with the fact a bill or bar Mary from the British succession. " Probably, if Elizabeth experienced it could have "undermined her own position" as Murphy highlights, but maybe would have also stopped further plots against her including the Babington story, as Lotherington suggests by stating "Thereafter, Mary figured prominentlyin the treasonous strategies of the British Catholics" recommending Elizabeth was wrong to be so reactive and arguably indecisive in her reaction to Mary Queen of Scots. It was a difficult situation for Elizabeth, and although keeping Mary alive led to more rebellions to aid her, it is also just as possible that Elizabeth could have confronted more opposition and hostility if she acquired killed Mary. Elizabeth was therefore in a situation where no amount of skill may help her, as whatever action she got would have experienced negative consequences. I will suggest that it was best for Elizabeth to go away the execution order when she performed, as she had been at battle with Spain, therefore the threat she may have confronted for performing Mary had been in place. This may therefore be observed as skilful timing by Elizabeth, even though she was indecisive about your choice.
The Catholic danger from abroad was also a significant one. Both France and Spain were Catholic through the early years of Elizabeth's reign, and the France Catholic League agreed upon the Treaty of Joinville in 1584, which bothered Elizabeth further, although there were no immediate plans from either France or Spain to act against her. Elizabeth was enormously lucky that Catholic crusade against her didn't come to go away, although she tried out to do much to stop it ever before occurring. Her overseas policy shows she have support Protestants in foreign countries, first in Scotland and later in France, although reluctantly. Elizabeth's good fortune came due to France's situation at that time. Many civil wars had been fought and Elizabeth unsuccessfully offered military aid to the Huguenots in the first. She presented off battle with Spain by participating in the 'marriage credit card' with Franois, Duke of Anjou, which is often regarded as a clever tactic employed by Elizabeth to recognize an alliance with France to counter the danger of Spain. The marriage negotiations I believe were skillful as they resulted in the Treaty of Blois. Lotherington agrees by stating, "Elizabeth 'got gained a French shield' against the might of Alva's army. But she prevented committing herself to any offensive actionThe Treaty met England's requirements exactly and was a commendable accomplishment. " This I'd trust as it created an Anglo-Franco alliance which meant England wouldn't normally be attacked on religious grounds, and the French would not support Mary Queen of Scots, without Elizabeth's control over Great britain being jeopardized.
However, the Treaty of Joinville showed how serious the risk was despite action taken up to avoid it. In the end it was Elizabeth's fortune that Henry IV came up to the throne regardless of the intent of the Catholic League, and so France and England's alliance continued to be strong.
Elizabeth certainly was skilful in some aspects of her forty-five season reign, but blessed in others. Her skill can be showed in how she performed on marriage negotiations to get what she needed, and as seen in the Treaty of Blois, could achieve benefits of relationships, such as strong alliances, with no disadvantages of opposition and compromised control. The actual fact that she never wedded can be criticised by those who noticed she should have done more to ensure the succession, however it is clear that she did not want to compromise the security of the England in order to do this. Her religious plan as well, and a lesser scope her dealings with Mary is seen as successful. She was able to overcome these risks, though not without challenge. The religious pay out of tolerance was an attempt at not being too extreme and gain opposition because than it. Although opposition still came from Catholics, I think that it was typically to do with the arrival of Mary in Britain, instead of Elizabeth's religious arrangement, and could have possibly been a whole lot worse if she acquired adopted an extremely extremist protestant pay out. I would trust Loades, who says, "no one is consistently good luck for nearly fifty years. " It is true that Elizabeth's skill and pragmatism was the basis of overcoming some of the dangers she faced.
However, it is also ordinary that Elizabeth acquired more than her good share of all the best in overcoming dangers. Illness in the first many years of her reign might well have easily ended her life and the Armada was Although I believe that the skill she used and her judgements in some matters led to her overcoming risks, I believe without a few of the good bundle of money she had she would not have been as successful as she was or lasted as Queen for so long as she does.