• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Do you agree with the view that Elizabeth(TM)s foreign policy was less effective in the last years of her reign?

Extracts from this document...


Do you agree with the view that Elizabeth's foreign policy was less effective in the last years of her reign? Throughout the reign of Elizabeth the aims laid out in her foreign policy largely remained the same. Elizabeth's intentions can be summarised into three main points, to protect Britain from invasions, to protect the Anglican faith and to protect the trade links with Antwerp. Elizabeth's aims were successful and the majority of her objectives were met, whether this is down to mere luck and external factors or a successful foreign policy is a heavily debated issue by historians. The view of source 1 suggests that Elizabeth had lost control of the events and that her ' deficiencies' as a leader had become increasingly apparent. This source also suggests that Elizabeth by no means had a successful foreign policy, but that her actions were simply in response to the events initiated by Spain. This viewpoint of Elizabeth's foreign policy is confirmed in source 2 where it is implied that Henry IV of France is able to manipulate Elizabeth whilst refusing her demands despite Elizabeth offering her support to the French king. It is the illustrated lack of power of Elizabeth's part in these sources that supports the view that Elizabeth's foreign policy has become less effective in the final years of her reign. ...read more.


On the other hand however, as the war was so costly to the British monarchy, it can be viewed as a success of Elizabeth's, in that she was able to cut back on some of the costs of was, hence reducing the national financial pressure. Elizabeth did have some significant successes in the Netherlands including the role the British troops played in enabling the Dutch to capture some cities in the Netherlands from the Spanish. This was a significant success for Elizabeth in 1590 as it was a warning to the Spanish to recognise Elizabeth's power s well as being a step towards weakening the Spanish power. It was however the events of 1604 that ultimately undermined the successes of Elizabeth's years, when James I signed the Treaty of London consequently agreeing to discontinue all English intervention in the Netherlands. However despite this, the English trade with Antwerp was protected and it did continue to bring much revenue into England, which as a result meant that Elizabeth's main aim was achieved. Due to the course of events however it seems this was entirely due to a successful foreign policy of Elizabeth's but also to the Treaty of London signed by James I in 1604. In relation to the British victory, defeating the Spanish during the Spanish Armada of 1588, MacCaffrey supports the view that it was not Elizabeth's foreign policy that caused this victory but a combination of luck and external factors. ...read more.


When James I signed the treaty with Spain and France, Elizabeth's efforts became pointless and her aims were forgotten. Having considered the 2 sources and my own knowledge I agree with the view that Elizabeth's foreign policy was less effective in the last years of her reign. It seems the main achievements and successes from 1588 to the end of Elizabeth's reign came as a direct result of either luck or external factors such as the victory in 1588, defeating the Spanish Armada, where it is the wind strength and direction that ultimately wins the war. Another example of this is the English victory in Ireland against the Spanish army who would have been weak and hungry again as a result of the previous bad luck of the winds, the third main success that is greatly due to external factors occurred in the Netherlands where with English support a number of Dutch cities were captured from the Spanish. Although Elizabeth claimed credit for this, and counted it as her success it was really a success of the Dutch and the influence of the English troops was just that, an influence. In conclusion therefore, it is clear to see that in the final years of Elizabeth's reign, the overall effectiveness of her foreign policy appeared to be very little. As a result it was only due to other unforeseen factors that Elizabeth and the entire British monarchy was able to survive the events of 1588 onwards. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. How successfully did James deal with religious problems throughout his reign?

    To do this James prevented the Church of England from splitting into groups, which could develop their own Protestant ideas and support Laud. Puritanism became a political as well as religious movement when the parliamentary protest against Stuart depotism became entwined with the religious protest against Archbishop Laud's policy of enforced conformity.

  2. coursework on Elizabeth I

    However, if Mary had never entered England, Elizabeth would have not had to deal with her at all and this single action of Mary's caused many Catholic's to become rebellious and this may have been the final element that caused Elizabeth to reach the decision to have Mary moved from

  1. Henry VIII'S Foreign Policy.

    Charles V was unhelpful in other ways too: he would not release his troops to help Henry, he rejected Henry's plans to dismember France following Charles's great victory over Francis I at Pavia in 1525, and he also refused to honour his treaty promise to marry Henry's daughter Mary (on

  2. How influential was Dudley on the reign of Elizabeth 1st

    third son of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V; and Henry, Duke of Anjou, younger brother of Charles IX of France, older brother of Francis, Duke of Anjou, and himself later Henry III of France. Elizabeth amused herself with each and all of these candidates, and played off one against the other.

  1. Assess the validity of the view that the Rump and Barebones parliaments had no ...

    These divisions have led to historians claiming that the "Rump talked a lot but did little" (Coward), and has portrayed a parliament pulling in different directions and thus achieving little. However, as I have already shown, the Rump did achieve.

  2. Henry VIIs main reason for negotiating with other countries was to increase the wealth ...

    This truce was beneficial to both France and England. For France it allowed them to expand into Italy, whilst England no longer feared the threat of a French invasion and was a step to Henry securing his position on the throne which Henry valued more than monetary gain.

  1. How far do you agree with the view that Elizabeth remained single because her ...

    More evidence to suggest that the council did not have significant influence on this decision can be seen when they could not agree whether or not Elizabeth should marry Alen�on and consequently left the decision to Elizabeth. Doren attempts to counter this argument with the theory that Elizabeth was unable

  2. Wives & War: To what extent did these two aspects undermine Henry VIIIs rule ...

    religion and its dependency on the Pope in Rome, for the reason that he could divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Along with this is his destruction of the old monasteries of its treasures and suppositious relics (Dr Starkey, 2009).

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work