Studies have also been conducted into the counsellors on an individual basis. It has been seen that Elizabeth may have had little control over some of her counsellors, most notably Essex. He was extremely self-righteous and a glory seeker. Being a military man he made various expeditions but rarely listened to the Queen’s instructions. For example, the failure at Cadiz and in Ireland when he formed a truce with the leader of the Irish rather then destroying them. From this it can be seen that Elizabeth had little control over him. Though referring to above some historians have noted that it would be difficult for any monarch in the 16th century to control someone in a different country. These historians have also noted that Elizabeth refused Essex’s requests on numerous occasions. His nominee for Lord Deputy General of Ireland was refused thus showing to us that Elizabeth kept power over him, this can be strengthened as ultimately Essex went too far and the Queen had him executed for rebellion. However though Elizabeth believed her-self to be in control she might not have been when they were abroad.
Foreign policy was a major weakness of Elizabeth. As she had not been brought up to rule she was lacking in knowledge of this area. She didn’t know about war, couldn’t go to war and as such took a very cautious approach towards it. In 1578 the problem of intervention in to the Netherlands war with Spain arose. Elizabeth was cautious but William Cecil, Essex and Dudley were for it. Old thinkers have shown that though Elizabeth suffered pressure form these men to intervene she only did seven years later when it look liked the Netherlands were about to fall. They claim that this shows that Elizabeth had control over her counsellors, as she was not pushed into doing something that she may later regret. However when Dudley went to Netherlands some historians have pointed out that he went against the Queens wishes showing her lack of control over him but there is an obvious counter argument to this. Elizabeth was in England, Dudley was in the Netherlands, and it would have been impossible to keep control over him for any monarch. Therefore though this may have been a particularly weak area for Elizabeth to assert control, it is probably a weakness that any monarch would have, not just herself.
Manipulation of Elizabeth was a common practice with counsellors. Some historians have claimed that Elizabeth was in constant manipulation by them, even by loyal servants such as William Cecil were to have manipulated her. For example it was found that he often sent letters to foreign ambassadors instructing them on what to say to Elizabeth in order to further his political wishes. So was Neale’s “loyal servant” correct? To back this up it can be seen that manipulation was typical of 16th century politics. For example the Duke of Buckingham hugely manipulated James I. It was not simply Elizabeth who suffered manipulation by her counsellors, some historians have just been too critical of Elizabeth because she was a woman. Other historians would have us remember that Elizabeth was Queen of England and as such had ultimate power and on occasions refused to make quick decisions on various matters and long deliberated them. Thus showing to us that she did have control on what was going on. If we look at the issue of Mary Queen of Scots she arrived in England in 1568 and was executed in 1587. It took Elizabeth 19 years to decide on the eventual execution. This clearly shows control over her counsellors as it is known that they had wanted her executed much earlier but Elizabeth had kept control and did as she saw fit.
Elizabeth had many methods of keeping herself in control of situations. She was an unfailing note taker when she met with her counsellors to discuss matters and often used outside organisations to keep a check on matters For example Elizabeth discovered the Norfolk plot through her ladies in waiting. She often sort advice from foreign ambassadors to help judge the advice of her counsellors. Some Historians believe that this show us that Elizabeth had control over her council. However other historians would argue that since Elizabeth had to go to these outside organisations she might not have been in total control. For example how can se have been in control of her council if she only found out about the Norfolk plot through her ladies in waiting? However Norfolk was executed for his lack of loyalty, some historians say that this can show to us that Elizabeth was in control when it mattered and she knew what she had to do to remain in control. This previous group of historians would say that Elizabeth was too soft on her favourites, Essex for example. On the numerous occasions that the Queen and Essex had disputes it was only one of these occasions that Essex came to apologise to Elizabeth. This was the time when he drew his sword to her after the refusal of the appointment of one his clients. This could show that she was in control and Essex felt he had gone too far. She often felt obliged to apologise to them. However perhaps this was simply her character and not her weakness. Historians have claimed that Elizabeth was a considerate queen thus showing that Elizabeth simply felt she should apologise out of common courtesy but ultimately held control. Further proven by the fact that Elizabeth did refuse to appoint his client and had him executed for his attempted rebellion. Also the outspoken Peter Wentworth was imprisoned for his objections to the queen in parliament, again showing her control over people.
Although some historians have claimed that though these few people failed to control Elizabeth using these tactics, there were some that managed to in other ways. It has been pointed out that the Cecil’s may have controlled Elizabeth by using a more gradual and cautious approach. William Cecil never took all the promotions that Elizabeth offered him, thus building trust, and gaining influence until eventually they were the most powerful family/group in the council.
However old thinkers have again pointed out that though Elizabeth may have deeply trusted this group she never continuously went along with their advice. For example the issue with Mary Queen of Scots. William Cecil was in favour of a quick execution however the 19 years wait shows us that perhaps Elizabeth ultimately had control over him.
In conclusion it can be seen that Elizabeth held powerful control over her counsellors though sometimes she had faults such as with foreign policy. But ultimately she had things in control. She employed various tactics to do so such as servant intrigue and often held the “upper hand” on most power/political games within the council for example the demise of both men who attempted to overthrow her, Essex and Dudley. Though some new thinkers have claimed that some of the problems were not as rife as old thinkers have made them out to be she still had a good control over them at length. As evidenced by her exceptionally long reign.
