Prospect of Marriage
Elizabeth I’s avoidance of royal intermarriage through her early years and throughout her reign ultimately allowed her to keep total control of the powers given to her as Queen. Throughout European history the practice of royal intermarriage occurred when members of ruling families married into other powerful families. Often arranged, these marriages were a common form of diplomacy, which signified a strategic alliance between the two nations. Elizabeth I witnessed such a marriage when her half sister Mary I married the Spanish Prince Philip of Spain. Despite her royal birth and bloodline in England, soon after her marriage to Prince Philip numerous roles of Mary’s were shifted to him, with many decisions being made in the interests of his native Spain (Thomas 98). Seeing the consequences of such a marriage, Elizabeth could not have been eager to lose all of her power and status just with the gaining of a husband. Furthermore, when Prince Philip offered his hand in marriage to Elizabeth I, following the death of Mary I, with the condition that she convert to Catholicism, Elizabeth I refused the proposal on the grounds that she would not give up her religion (Thomas 96). John Knox, a Scottish minister and outspoken critic Elizabeth I, said that the “greatest inconvenience” of Queens was that when they married their kingdom would transfer to “strangers” as a woman needed to cede her power to her husband and superior (McLaren 259). In witnessing the issues her sister Mary I faced after her marriage, Elizabeth I used such insight to prevent the loss of her high position at the English court. With this in mind Elizabeth I successfully evaded the government’s pressure to marry for the duration of her lifetime.
Elizabeth I’s refusal and evasion of marriage had major implications on the line of succession for the throne. As monarchy is a hereditary system based upon primogeniture, it was critical that the ruling monarch produce or declare an heir prior to death. In other instances, kingdoms without a recognized heir to assume the throne saw great conflict building up to civil war between family members each with strong claims to the crown. In all instances, the best way to for a monarch to avoid conflict while also securing their lineage and legacy after death was to have children of their own as clear successors. The cornerstone of any monarchy is in producing children to continue the family line and legacy. Thus, Elizabeth I getting married and having children was not simply important from the standpoint of relations with other neighboring kingdoms but also for dynastic implications (McLaren 262). A lack of reproduction was not the only issue concerning her Privy Council, in 1562 at the age of 29 Elizabeth I contracted smallpox stirring fears of her death. The Privy Council was a collection of noblemen, selected by Elizabeth I, from across the realm who had both influence in their regions of England and money. The Councilors primary role was to advise the monarch when required but they also were involved in numerous government functions and even the ability to issue “official documents” (Labaree and Moody 190) and acts. Following her recovery, the anxious members of Parliament and the Privy Council increased their pressure on Elizabeth I to marry while she was able to have children and to name a successor (Thomas 114). Her unwillingness to do either left the kingdom without an undisputed heir and in a dangerous position. Such danger would be realized if Elizabeth I was to die suddenly, as she was without any children of her own or even living siblings the realm would be plunged into a dispute between the extended royal family. Elizabethan Historian Joel Hurstfield agrees with this position and elaborates claiming that marriage and children would limit her authority for periods of time, something Elizabeth I would despise. However, one could argue that Elizabeth I was further securing safety and power for herself as the ruling monarch in specifically avoiding the naming a successor, especially a male successor, as such actions would have similar consequences to a husband. Elizabeth I’s power and authority would ultimately be challenged and undermined by the presence of such an individual. It could be said that Elizabeth I’s silence on the matter of succession was an asset to her own political longevity as her throne would become vulnerable to uprising or coup as had happened with her predecessors. Thus, with this attitude in mind ensuring Elizabeth I was healthy and away from danger was in the best interests of all parties.
Through her life, Elizabeth I had a number of suitors attempt to court her, ironically Elizabeth I used her gender to manipulate such individuals for her own benefit and the benefit of her kingdom. As the ruling Queen of England, a powerful nation within itself, Elizabeth I encountered numerous aristocratic and royal suitors from all over Europe. A marriage between two ruling monarchs would ensure their lineage would rule both kingdoms simultaneously securing their family in a position of great power. Taking the upper hand in marriage negotiations, Elizabeth I would dangle the prospect of marriage to foreign ambassadors when tensions between the kingdoms flared and further used it as a strategy to kept her enemies and rivals off balance to European alliances. Additionally, her zig-zagging between marriage prospects kept members of Elizabeth I’s Privy Council occupied and thus were distracted from the domestic matter of greater importance to her (Thomas 99). In this sense, she used her gender and the prospect of marriage to manipulate foreign governments into forming alliances while weakening the position of her enemies all for the gain of England. One of her most serious suitors was with Francis, the French Duke of Anjou and younger brother of the French King Henry III. The marriage would have strategically tied England and France against the growing power of Spain but also caused fear of the repercussions of a potential new Catholic King in Protestant England. Their courtship went so far as to allow Elizabeth I to announce that she would marry the Duke in front of the French ambassador, publicly kiss Francis and present him with a ring from her own hand. However, the following morning Elizabeth I withdrew her previous offer, citing that she needed to put the needs of her country before her own happiness (Thomas 145). In this theatric plot Elizabeth I furthered the English-French alliance, especially with Francis receiving a gift of ten thousand pounds from Elizabeth I, and further cemented her public persona that it was her duty to serve her country’s over her own desires. Contemporary of Elizabeth I, the poet Edmund Spencer, encapsulated the shifting attitude of the kingdom as his work “April” which was written in the midst of the Anjou controversy and shows the “borderline text that enhances the queen’s standing as a princess eligible for marriage at the same time that it praises her in a manner that may be read as an appeal to remain unmarried” (King 32). This notion that Elizabeth I was bound by duty to put country over self is further seen when she declares before Parliament “Behold… the Pledge of thus my Wedlock and Marriage with my Kingdom” (Camden 27). Elizabeth I proclaimed that she had no need for a husband who would only distract her from her obligation to her kingdom. Elizabeth I’s strategic use of the prospect of marriage along with her gender, what was a handicap for a lady of the era, in order to aid in her wits, political brilliance, and strategy for her advantage in her pursuit of foreign affairs.
Gender as an Asset
One of Elizabeth I’s greatest opponents to as the decisive heir to the English Throne was her cousin Mary Queen of Scots, the senior legitimate descendant of Margaret Tudor the eldest sister of Henry VIII. The issue of who had a rightful claim to the English throne was not only one of political conflict but also religious, as Mary Queen of Scots was a Catholic and Elizabeth I was protestant. The issue was further in contention because in the eyes of Catholics, Elizabeth I was an illegitimate bastard as her father Henry VIII’s marriage to Ann Boleyn was after divorcing his first wife. Elizabeth’s illegitimacy therefore meant Mary Queen of Scots was also the rightful heir to the English throne (Weir 18). Such unnecessary hostilities on the British Isles were openly discussed in a letter between Henry Killigrew, and English diplomate, and Robert Dudley, a favorite in Elizabeth I’s court, dated 31 December 1560 “Me-thinketh it were to be wished of all wise men and her Majesty’s good subjects, that the one of those two Queens of the isle of Britain were transformed into the shape of a man, to make so happy a marriage, as thereby there might be an unity of the whole isle.” (qtd. in McLaren 259). The ongoing dispute between Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots strong claim to the English throne would have been put to rest with Elizabeth I marrying and the birth of a child. Such a child would leave an undisputed heir and show commitment to continuing the protestant ideals in England. Although birthing an heir or selecting a successor would secure peace in England and ensure her own safety, Elizabeth I evaded pressures from numerous individuals to do so in an effort to consolidate power for herself.
Despite being heir to the English throne and of royal descent, Elizabeth I did not receive the same respect that previous monarchs had received when taking over the throne. As women of the period were considered feeble minded and not trusted with important matters of state, Elizabeth I needed to earn the respect of her Parliament and Privy Council. Following the period when she inherited the throne after her half-sister’s death, Elizabeth I was treated as a novice monarch that needed to win the respect of the senior members of government through her knowledge of domestic affairs and showing leadership and strength at Privy Council meetings. Shortly after becoming queen Elizabeth I proclaimed her intentions and asserted her position before her peers and Councilors stating
“My lords, the law of nature moves me to sorrow for my sister; the burden that is fallen upon me makes me amazed, and yet, considering I am God’s creature, ordained to obey His appointment, I will thereto yield, desiring from the bottom of my heart that I may have assistance of His grace to be the minister of His heavenly will in this office now committed to me. And as I am but one body naturally considered, though by His permission a body politic to govern, so shall I desire you all … to be assistant to me, that I with my ruling and you with your service may make a good account to Almighty God and leave some comfort to our posterity on earth. I mean to direct all my actions by good advice and counsel.” (qtd. in Loades 36-37)
In this statement, Elizabeth I asserts her right to divine right to be monarch and seize power with their aid of her council. In contrast, other female rulers in Europe, including Elizabeth I’s cousin Mary Queen of Scots, who was known to embroider handkerchiefs during council meetings (Thomas 84). One could argue that Mary Queen of Scots lesser involvement in the governing of Scotland, not welding the same respect from her Privy Council and other influential people, and not possessing the love of the Scottish people lead up to her forced abdication in 1567 and her infant son James becoming King of Scotland (Guy 364). Such required actions were unprecedented from prior male monarchs, who simply assumed power, but ultimately in acting as if she was a male and asserting her position, Elizabeth I was further developed into a ruler with greater control and respect of her kingdom.
Entering her reign with a disadvantage in her gender, Elizabeth I saw the value in her image as Good Queen Bess believing that her survival as monarch came from the love of her people and without their goodwill her government would not thrive (Thomas 78-79). This image of hers of Good Queen Bess and the Virgin Queen was one deep committed to the advancement of the nation and the duty through her “perpetual virginity” and “symbolic marriage with England as her husband” (King 30). All the while
“Her maidenly chastity was… interpreted not as a sign of political or social deficiency, but rather as a paradoxical symbol of the power of a woman who survived to govern despite illegitimization, subordination of female to male in the order of primogeniture, patriarchy, and masculine supremacy, and who remained unwed at a time when official sermons favored marriage and attacked the monastic vow of celibacy and veneration of the Virgin Mary.” (30)
Ultimately using her womanhood as an asset to her advantage, English subjects viewed her as a powerful and devoted ruler, such was essential for the continuation of her actual power. While intended or coincidental gain on Elizabeth I’s part, remaining unmarried during her reign ushered in a colt surrounding her virginity and lead to her depictions in art and literature not as a woman but “as a perpetually virgin goddess” (43). This persona created by Elizabeth I – that it was her god given duty to rule established and secured her position as the relevant and beloved queen which she is remembered for.
While one could argue that Elizabeth I used her intelligence to prevent her own marriage, despite pressures from Parliament and the Privy Council seeking and heir, other factors may have played a role on her undivided grasp on the English throne. One could argue that Elizabeth I working in conjunction with Dudley, a highly influential member Elizabethan courtier and suitor, and Cecil, an ally and confidant of Elizabeth’s who held numerous government positions, along with the remainder of the Privy Council filled that the vacancy left by a king. While Elizabeth I may have wanted unchallenged possession of the crown, this differed from the Privy Council who wanted to secure the reputation of England as a prominent Protestant kingdom (McLaren 266). The Scottish ambassador James Melville in England even pointed out that Elizabeth I enjoyed filling the roles both King and Queen when he said “I know your stately stomach [pride]. You think, if you were married, you would be but Queen of England, and now you are King and Queen Both. You may not endure a commander” (Thomas 121). In this sense, entering a marriage would be degrading for Elizabeth I as her power as ruler would only be reduced by her husband’s presence. With her position as sole Monarch, she was extremely desirable to royals and aristocrats all over the continent. Should Elizabeth I have married and produced children, they would rule both kingdoms and secure future family members into a powerful dynasty. In this sense, one could argue that Elizabeth I might have had such an overwhelming number and variety of suitors that she was never able to decide upon one that pleased her, the members of her Privy Council, and Parliament. This idea is further agreed upon by the Historian Susan Doran, who claims that Elizabeth did not refuse to marry, instead she patiently waited years as her Privy Council could not unanimously agree upon a single suitor for their queen. Perhaps the great number of suitors who desired to further their own positions at court and ultimately undermined Elizabeth I’s ability to establish a strong line of Protestant succession (McLaren 265). This argument has value when considering of the motivations of her advisors in the Privy Council seeking to advance their position and influence in court, however as previously evident Elizabeth I would not have sought to aid the finding a suitor for her. Elizabeth I neither wanted nor was willing to sacrifice her throne and position of power in exchange for a husband and potential heirs.
Golden Age for England
The Elizabethan era is known as a golden age for England. During this period in England there was a significant decrease in tensions between Protestants and Catholics, all of which occurred because of Elizabeth I’s gentler approach to the divide. In terms of religion, there is little speculation that Elizabeth I practiced Protestantism considering that Catholics saw her mother’s marriage and her birth as illegitimate. However, with a kingdom divided following years of shifting back and forth between religions Elizabeth I lead the kingdom towards Protestantism and addressed English Protestant desires while specifically avoiding greatly upsetting the Catholics. To accomplish this the parliament in 1559 began legislature that was similar to that of the Protestant settlement during the time of Edward VI, giving the monarch the role as head of the church but deliberately included Catholic elements (Loades 46). This strategically lenient and pacifistic approach to the national religion is best underlined with Elizabeth I’s response to the divide between religions stating “There is only one Christ, Jesus, one faith. All else is a dispute over trifles.” While one might argue that religious stability and some degree of tolerance cannot be directly connected to Elizabeth I’s gender or avoidance of marriage, her leadership in changing the Kingdom’s religion to Protestantism and the long and relatively stable period that followed surely had a role in solidifying stability.
In addition to religious stability the kingdom had a number of military victories during Elizabeth I’s lengthy reign, the most important of which was the battle between the Spanish Armanda and the English Fleet. In retaliation for harm caused to the Spanish by English Privateering and with the hopes of overthrowing Elizabeth I and her Protestant government, Philip II of Spain decided to take military action against neighboring England. A combination of bad luck and miscalculation due to Spanish ships arriving to find the troops not ready to attack, delaying the Spanish and giving the English an advantage of launching the first attack which dispersed and defeated the Armada (Loades 64). Meanwhile the English militias at Tilbury awaiting Spanish landfall were addressed by Elizabeth I where she remarked
“My loving people, we have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit ourself to armed multitudes for fear of treachery; but I assure you, I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people … I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any Prince of Europe should dare to invade the borders of my realm.” (Sharp)
Such a proclamation on behalf of the queen at “Tilbury provided all of the “exterior shews” anyone could wish” (Green 428) and without an invasion of ships making landfall the kingdom rejoiced. The victory over the great Spanish Armada, in addition to Elizabeth I’s passionate speech was invaluable propaganda both for Protestantism and Elizabeth I. This turn of events, under the leadership of their virgin queen, was seen as a direct symbol of God’s favor (Loades 61).