You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 marks, in the popular imagination, the summit of the Elizabethan age — the moment of "Gloriana" triumphant, Protestant England delivered, the queen immortal at Tilbury. Yet the fifteen years that followed were, in truth, among the most difficult of the reign. The 1590s were a decade of grinding war taxation, of catastrophic harvest failure and near-famine, of rising crime and disorder, of factional breakdown at a court from which the old stabilising figures had died away, and of a queen grown old and increasingly out of touch with a new generation of ambitious men. The reign that had begun in fragile promise ended not in decline exactly — the state held, the succession passed peacefully — but in a mood of weariness, grievance, and anxiety about what would come after. This lesson examines that difficult final phase: the multiple crises of the 1590s, the meteoric rise and catastrophic fall of the Earl of Essex and his abortive rebellion of 1601, the great parliamentary storm over monopolies and the celebrated "Golden Speech," the unresolved and dangerous question of the succession, and the historians' verdict on whether the reign ended in decline or merely in the natural exhaustion of a long, embattled monarchy.
The topic is governed by a debate about decline. On one reading, the 1590s reveal a regime in decay — its finances strained by war, its social order fraying, its court riven by faction, its ageing queen clinging to power while the succession loomed unresolved; the reign, on this view, outlived its own golden age and sank toward a troubled end. On another reading, the difficulties of the 1590s were the ordinary strains of a long war and a hard decade, weathered by a resilient state that passed the crown to James VI without civil war — the very opposite of collapse. As throughout this course, the discriminating answer disaggregates: distinguishing genuine strain and grievance from any claim of systemic decline, and the personal decline of an ageing queen from the institutional durability of her government.
The organising question is this: did the last years of Elizabeth's reign, from the Armada to her death, reveal a regime in genuine decline — strained by war, faction, and social crisis, and endangered by the unresolved succession — or a resilient state weathering the ordinary difficulties of a long war and an ageing monarch, and passing on a stable inheritance?
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y107 (British period study & enquiry): England 1547–1603 — The Later Tudors, and closes the Elizabethan half of the unit. It is examined in two ways:
Because Y107 is a period study, examiners reward command of how the reign developed to its close; keep asking how each crisis affected the stability of royal authority and how far it represented genuine decline rather than survivable strain. Our sequence groups the material around the crises of the 1590s, Essex, monopolies, and the succession — a pedagogical arrangement of our own, not a transcription of the specification's ordering (refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording). This lesson gathers the threads of the whole course — government (Lesson 4), the religious challenges (Lesson 5), society and the economy (Lesson 6), and the costs of the Spanish and Irish wars (Lesson 7) — into a final assessment of the reign.
The 1590s were, by common consent, the hardest decade of the reign, and understanding why the mood darkened so sharply after the Armada is essential to the whole assessment. Several pressures converged at once, and it is their convergence, more than any single one, that gives the decade its character of crisis.
| Crisis | Detail |
|---|---|
| War taxation | The continuing war with Spain and the escalating war in Ireland (Lesson 7) required repeated parliamentary subsidies and forced loans; the fiscal burden fell heavily on a population already under economic strain, and the treasury was left depleted |
| Harvest failure and famine | The catastrophic harvests of 1594–1597 sent grain prices soaring and produced genuine famine conditions — and even starvation — especially in the north; real wages, already low, collapsed for the poorest |
| Social disorder | Dearth, demobilised soldiers, and economic distress fed a rise in crime, vagrancy, and localised disorder; the government's anxiety is visible in the harsh Poor Law and vagrancy legislation of 1598 (Lesson 6) |
| Plague and mortality | Recurrent outbreaks of plague compounded the misery of the dearth years, raising urban mortality |
| Factional strain | The deaths of the old stabilising councillors — Leicester (1588), Walsingham (1590), and eventually Burghley (1598) — removed the men who had held the court in balance, opening the way to a destabilising rivalry (below) |
The convergence is the key analytical point. Any one of these pressures — war taxation, dearth, disorder — the Elizabethan state had weathered before; what made the 1590s exceptional was their simultaneity, and the fact that they struck just as the queen aged and the balancing hands of the old Privy Council were removed by death. Yet a strong answer immediately qualifies the picture: severe as the decade was, the state did not break down. Taxes were voted and collected; the Poor Law relieved and disciplined the destitute; order was, in the end, maintained; and the war in Ireland was won. The 1590s were a decade of genuine and severe strain — but strain is not the same as decline, and distinguishing the two is the heart of the topic.
The factional instability of the 1590s found its focus in one man: Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex — young, glamorous, ambitious, and dangerously unstable — whose rise and fall is the great political drama of the reign's end and a textbook case of faction turning destabilising when the balance that normally contained it breaks down.
| Phase | Detail |
|---|---|
| The rise | The stepson of Leicester, Essex became the ageing queen's favourite in the late 1580s; handsome, martial, and popular, he built a following and craved military glory and the direction of policy |
| The rivalry | Essex's chief rivals were the Cecils — the ageing Burghley and his rising son Robert Cecil — who represented the cautious, administrative, peace-leaning interest against Essex's militant "forward" ambition; the competition was for offices, patronage, and the queen's favour |
| Exclusion from patronage | As Robert Cecil consolidated his grip on offices and the flow of patronage, Essex found himself increasingly shut out — denied the rewards and influence he believed his due, and mounting into resentment and financial desperation |
| The Irish command (1599) | Given the command against Tyrone in Ireland (Lesson 7), Essex squandered a huge army, failed disastrously, made an unauthorised truce with the rebel, and then deserted his post to burst in upon the queen unannounced — a catastrophic breach of discipline |
| Disgrace and ruin | Stripped of his offices and, fatally, of the lucrative sweet-wines monopoly that sustained his finances, a ruined and desperate Essex turned to conspiracy |
The rebellion of 1601 was the culmination of Essex's ruin — and its utter collapse is as significant as the rising itself. In February 1601, financially desperate and politically cornered, Essex attempted to raise the City of London, marching through the streets in the wild hope that the citizens would rally to him against his enemies at court and force his way back to the queen. They did not stir. The rising collapsed within hours; Essex surrendered, was tried for treason, and was executed. Its failure is deeply revealing: the only armed challenge to Elizabeth from within the political establishment mustered no popular support whatever and evaporated in an afternoon — powerful evidence of the underlying stability of the regime even in the queen's extreme old age. Paul Hammer argues persuasively that the rising is best understood as the product of Essex's exclusion: as the Cecil interest monopolised patronage, Essex was starved of the rewards and influence that had always channelled aristocratic ambition into service, and it was this breakdown of the patronage balance — not any structural weakness in the monarchy — that turned a frustrated favourite into a rebel. Faction, on this reading, became destabilising only when the queen and her ministers failed to keep it in balance, which is a very different thing from a regime in decline.
If the Essex revolt was the reign's last aristocratic crisis, the monopolies dispute was its last parliamentary one — and Elizabeth's handling of it is a masterclass in the political management that had defined her reign, showing that even in old age she retained the skill to convert a forced retreat into an act of royal love.
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| What monopolies were | Exclusive rights to produce, import, or sell a particular commodity, granted by the Crown to courtiers and favourites as a cheap form of patronage — a way of rewarding servants without spending Crown money |
| The grievance | By the 1590s monopolies had multiplied and covered everyday goods (salt, starch, playing cards, and much else); they raised prices, created private fortunes at the public's expense, and were bitterly resented as a corrupt burden on the commonwealth |
| The parliamentary storm (1597, 1601) | Mounting anger produced the fiercest Commons protest of the reign in 1601; MPs attacked the monopolies directly and threatened to legislate against the royal prerogative that granted them |
| Elizabeth's response | Rather than force a confrontation over the prerogative, she conceded — issuing a proclamation cancelling the most offensive monopolies and promising review of the rest |
| The "Golden Speech" (1601) | Addressing a deputation of the Commons, Elizabeth framed the retreat as an act of loving care for her subjects, professing that she valued their love above the crown itself — turning a climb-down into a triumph of royal affection |
The monopolies episode is doubly instructive. First, it shows the real limits of Elizabethan finance and patronage: monopolies existed because the Crown was too poor to reward its servants any other way, and the grievance they caused is a symptom of the fiscal strain that the wars had deepened. Second, and more importantly, it shows Elizabeth's undimmed political skill. Faced with a Commons in open revolt over a prerogative matter, she did not dig in and provoke a constitutional clash (as her Stuart successors would); she retreated, but retreated so gracefully — recasting concession as generosity in the Golden Speech — that she emerged with her authority enhanced and her subjects' loyalty reaffirmed. This is management, not weakness, and it is powerful evidence against any simple story of "decline": the queen who defused the monopolies storm in 1601 was still the consummate politician who had governed for forty years. The contrast with the Stuart handling of similar prerogative disputes is one of the most illuminating in the period.
The greatest unresolved problem of the reign — the one Elizabeth had refused to settle for forty-five years (Lesson 4) — pressed most acutely in these final years, as the childless queen aged and the question of who would succeed her could no longer be postponed.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| The persistent refusal | Elizabeth had never married and never named an heir, treating the succession as a prerogative matter and forbidding its public discussion; by the 1590s the danger of a disputed succession was acute |
| The obvious candidate | With Mary Queen of Scots executed in 1587, her son James VI of Scotland — a Protestant, and a descendant of Henry VII through Margaret Tudor — was the strongest claimant, though his title was clouded by Henry VIII's will |
| The danger | An unresolved succession risked exactly the disputed, contested, possibly violent transfer of power that the memory of the fifteenth century made the ultimate nightmare, and that a foreign or Catholic claimant could exploit |
| Robert Cecil's management | In the reign's final years Robert Cecil conducted a secret correspondence with James VI, quietly preparing the ground for his accession and smoothing the path — statecraft conducted behind the ageing queen's back to avert the crisis she would not address |
| The peaceful accession (1603) | On Elizabeth's death in March 1603, James VI was proclaimed James I of England smoothly and without disorder — the feared succession crisis never materialised |
The succession is the acid test of the "decline" question, and it cuts against the decline thesis. Here was the reign's deepest structural weakness, left dangerously unresolved to the very end by a queen who would not confront her own mortality — and yet, when the moment came, the crown passed to a Protestant successor peacefully and without civil war. That this happened owed less to Elizabeth, who did nothing to arrange it, than to the quiet management of Robert Cecil, whose secret diplomacy with James is a striking example of the institutional competence that underpinned the reign even as the queen declined. The peaceful accession of 1603 is thus a paradox that a strong answer must confront: the reign's greatest failure of policy — the refusal to settle the succession — produced, through ministerial skill and biological good fortune, one of its greatest successes of outcome. A danger left unresolved for forty-five years was, in the end, contained and survived — which is the very opposite of a state in collapse.
How, then, should the reign's end be judged? The image cultivated by the regime — and long accepted by posterity — is that of Gloriana: the Virgin Queen, timeless and triumphant, presiding over a golden age of Shakespeare and sea-dogs and Protestant deliverance. The reality of the 1590s was harsher, and the tension between the image and the reality is the substance of the historiographical debate.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.