Sir Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester is whom historians have come to believe is the only candidate Elizabeth truly considered. The story is one of “romance, mystery, intrigue, hope and despair” (Randell) and in particular, scandal and stretches over thirty years. The only other man Elizabeth was thought to have loved was Thomas Seymour, a huge influence on her adolescence, was thought to be her abuser, leaving Elizabeth both heart-broken and traumatised. However, the council would not let Elizabeth marry Dudley after his cancer afflicted wife died in ‘suspicious’ circumstances in September 1560 amid a cacophony of accusations upon both Dudley and Elizabeth, for their alleged involvement in her death. Elizabeth’s was forced to rule with her common sense over her personal inclinations, although she later, rather cruelly, claimed that she would never have married Dudley, because he was merely a servant. Dudley resignedly admitted in 1572, that “Her majesty’s heart is nothing inclined to marry at all.” Indeed, C. Haigh believes that “[Elizabeth] did not propose to confuse the issue by recruiting a husband” so even if she did once love Dudley, it is quite possible that this distasteful incident gave her a chance to avoid such a union.
The most well-known (in this day) of the foreign candidates- ironically one whom Elizabeth never would have married, because of his marriage to her sister- was Philip II of Spain, who was keen to maintain the relations between the Spanish and English monarchies. Many historians have been interested to why there was so much discussion on a future union between the two, if Elizabeth and her council had no intention of approving it. Elizabeth’s evasiveness was most likely a stalling tactic intended to retain Spanish friendship for as long as possible, a series of diplomatic manoeuvres for political advantage. She had no intention of fulfilling Philip’s expectations of her as the grateful sister of his dead wife.
Though more away from the limelight, it was much more likely that Elizabeth would have married either of the French princes, the Dukes of Anjou and Alencon. Although of a more suitable age, Anjou was a staunch Catholic and in marrying him Elizabeth would probably subject England to a civil and religious war. Despite his disfigurement and the fact that he was twenty years younger than her, Elizabeth and her council saw potential political advantages in Alencon and when he came over to England to visit in 1579, the general opinion at court was that they were to marry. However, traditionally France and England had been arch enemies and the prospect of such a union exacerbated many of the influential men in the kingdom’s xenophobic hatred of the French and Catholicism. Alencon worked directly on the resolve of the queen; however she could not ignore political reality. The Privy Council said that they would support her only if it was what she wanted, but there was by no means an unreserved recommendation. In October 1579 Alencon realised the union would never happen and this also indicated the end to the English hopes that Elizabeth would ever marry. In reality, Elizabeth could have married Alencon if she had really wished to, as her Privy Council agreed to support her. However, historians believe it is likely her intentions of marrying were tainted by her resolve never to fall in love again after Dudley.
Historians have consequently formed schools of thought to why Elizabeth never married. She has been attributed with an aggressive determination typically seem in male rulers at the time and an astuteness with which she may have realised the growing advantages of remaining single. Without the wishes of a husband to consider, she could expand her image of ‘Virgin Queen’ and elevate herself above the ranks of the ordinary female ruler. The sycophantic Sir James Melville told Elizabeth in 1564, “Now you are both King and Queen.” As J. Hurstfield points out, “Marriage and motherhood would deprive her temporarily- perhaps permanently of the authority and power to rule.” Without a doubt, the autonomous Elizabeth “would find [this] intolerable.” Another opinion is that Elizabeth’s physical state has prompted many to purport that it was bad health that led Elizabeth to remain unmarried and childless. It seemed impossible for her contemporaries (and many subsequent historians) to fathom that there was no obstacle preventing Elizabeth from having children. The Spanish Ambassador, Alvaro de la Quadra said, “It is the common opinion…. That this woman is unhealthy and it is believed that she will not bear children.” Indeed, Henry VIII had died of syphilis and this may well have left Elizabeth barren and therefore reluctant to marry and admit to this. However, historians cannot be convinced, as in contrast, William Cecil in 1579 said there was a “probability of... aptness to have children. “
The interest of most historians has led them to agree that Elizabeth behaved badly over the question of the succession. She acted selfishly and not with altruism for her country, postponing her choice in who would succeed her, which could then cause her country civil strife and political turmoil after her death. She only executed Mary Stuart after 19 years, because she was tricked by her councillors into signing her death warrant. This was despite her Privy Council’s permanently fear, as Mary made it quite clear that her ambition was Elizabeth’s throne and engaged in four p[lots against Elizabeth, which had foreign backing. Elizabeth’s refusal to name a successor could also have been a ploy, as she realised that her subjects would have a vested interest in keeping her alive so that the chaos likely to follow her death could be postponed for as long as possible. There is ample evidence for this and Elizabeth herself described how her experience of being the nominated heir during Mary’s reign had convinced her that is was a danger to have an acknowledged monarch-in-waiting. It is plausible that Elizabeth was not just acting selfishly, but for the benefit of the political stability of England, choosing never to name an heir in order to allow as many people as possible to continue living in hope.
It was not until October 1562 when Elizabeth almost died after contracting smallpox that she was forced to confront the issue of her succession. There were no more descendants of Henry VIII, so it was necessary to look to the Tudor blood of Henry’s two sisters to find a monarch. All of the surviving descendants were female and the obvious successor, Margaret’s grand-daughter, Mary Queen of Scots. She was controversial because she had married Francis II and lived in France all her life and if she were to inherit the English crown, it was thought that she could become a French pawn in the same way that Scotland had become. She was also unlikely to accept the religious status quo of England. Mary’s grand-daughters on the other hand, consisted of Lady Catherine and Lady Mary Grey who were dull and unpopular. It was not until 1587 that Eland heaved a sigh of relief as an heir emerged in the executed Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland, who was a Protestant of moderate views and uninfluenced by France or Spain. He was a universal ‘safe’ candidate and luckily for Elizabeth, with similar views to her and a reserved personality so there was little chance of rebellions uniting behind him against Elizabeth.
In conclusion, historians have debated extensively on why Elizabeth, despite opportunities, remained a childless spinster. There is no doubt that she was aware of the importance of her marriage, saying “There is a strong idea in the world that a woman cannot live unless she is married.” However, in general Elizabeth remained irritatingly (and most probably tactically) elusive about the whole affair- it is unclear how much of the time she was playing diplomatic games, or whether she once did intend to marry. If the nobles of England could have foreseen that Elizabeth would elude her obligation to marry and produce a (preferably male) heir, she would probably never have been allowed to mount the throne. Her marriage was thought to be as much a matter of course, and as necessary, as her coronation. Ultimately, one historian, S. Doran reminds us of why there is so much debate- because “there is very little evidence” for a definitive answer. It could have been her supposed implacable hostility to marriage; a determination to rule alone; a bad state of health; traumatic childhood memories; or merely that Elizabeth never found a candidate approved by the Council who she thought was worth considering.
