To what extent was Mary, Queen of Scots the major cause of instability in Elizabethan England?

During Elizabeth’s reign, minor incidences occurred which could have caused instability if they had escalated including; Mary, Queen of Scots and the succession issue, plots in England, plots abroad and the puritans. Historian Heather Thomas stated, “Mary was always seen as a considerable threat to Elizabeth. Many Catholics did not recognize Elizabeth as the true Queen of the realm.” This is shown to be incorrect with the lack of support for the Northern Earls Rebellion, the long lasting respect shown to Elizabeth by Pope Pius V and Phillip II and Puritan loyalty to the Queen despite grievances with her religious settlement. Furthermore, Mary could cause no instability after 1587 and her son James was a popular choice for Elizabeth’s heir. Plots in England such as the Northern Earls Rebellion and the Ridolfi Plot were carelessly organised, closely watched by Walsingham and Elizabeth’s spy network and therefore never came to fruition. The excommunication had little impact throughout Europe; it was not publicised, banned from display in Spain and as the majority of English Catholics resided in the north, they were in no position to cause Elizabeth any instability. The Spanish Armada came closest to causing instability in England, but weather and geographical conditions ensured its failure and so no instability arose. All puritans were loyal to Elizabeth as Queen, if not as head of the Church and they were too disunited and unorganised to ever become a cause of instability. Any instability during Elizabeth’s reign was certainly contributed to by Elizabeth herself: she heightened tension concerning the succession by refusing to either marry or name an heir and being indecisive over Mary’s execution. Mary, Queen of Scots was not a major cause of instability; the threats she posed were minor and they had little affect on Elizabeth’s control of the throne that was, on the whole, stable throughout her reign.

One of the ways Mary could have cause instability was; the succession ‘crisis’ came about because Elizabeth never married, had children, or named an heir. If Elizabeth did not marry by choice, then she caused the crisis. If there were no suitable candidates then it was Mary causing instability as she pressed her claim. If, as was the case, Elizabeth was always in control of the political situation and was not confused as to who would succeed her then there was no crisis. Because Mary was the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, elder sister to Henry VIII, she was a Tudor claimant to the English throne and Elizabeth’s successor by the rights of primogeniture, and the divine rights of kings, she strengthened her claim through marriage to Lord Darnley who was also of Tudor descent. However, Henry VIII in his will, wanted the succession to pass to the Suffolk line. This was not plausible for Elizabeth; Jane Grey had been executed, and her two sisters had spent time in the tower and had little support, therefore they were not sensible successors.

The possibility of Mary succeeding Elizabeth was perceived to be a cause of instability because Mary was a Roman Catholic and would change England’s religion. Elizabeth’s Protestant councillors did not want that, as it may have resulted in a civil war. The majority of English people were Catholic and Elizabeth was not sure they would follow her if Mary were named heir. Furthermore, Elizabeth did not want political focus to shift from herself to her successor. Elizabeth could have decided the succession crisis and any arising causes of instability by marrying and having an heir. However her grandmother and her stepmother both died in childbirth and Elizabeth did not believe she could be both a mother and a Queen. Furthermore, she was self centred and did not want to hand her political power to a Prince Consort, or be upstaged by naming an heir. Elizabeth may have had good reasons to decide not to marry, but she would still be responsible for any instability that arose from the succession.

Conversely, it could be argued there was no one suitable for Elizabeth to marry. Phillip II was a Catholic believed responsible for the Protestant burnings in Mary Tudor’s reign; Robert Dudley was not of royal lineage, unpopular at court and his marriage to Elizabeth would have implicated her in the mysterious death of his wife. The Duke of Alencon seemed the most likely candidate, but, he was disliked by the masses and after the French were no longer a force in the Netherlands, the engagement was broken off.

Any possible instability was avoided after Mary’s execution in 1587. Elizabeth ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Any possible instability was avoided after Mary’s execution in 1587. Elizabeth was fortunate in having James as her unspoken heir, and he had no strong challenge after Mary’s execution and the death of all three Grey sisters. As Elizabeth believed in primogeniture, she always assumed Mary would succeed her and after Mary’s execution, James became the natural successor; he never needed to be named. “Elizabeth refused to allow a decision about her successor to be made, realising that while this was the case her most influential subjects would have a vested interest in keeping her alive” this insinuates that Elizabeth was not being impulsive over the succession issue, and realised that leaving her subjects in limbo was the best way of appeasing every faction and therefore there was in fact no cause of instability.

Mary’s presence in England was another potential cause of instability. In 1568, Lord Darnley was murdered and Mary, Queen of Scots, fled to England hoping for protection. Elizabeth could have handed Mary over to the Scottish Lords, who would have executed her; but she did not want to be responsible for the death of an anointed monarch. She could instead have executed Mary herself, but she was her cousin, and this would have breached the divine rights of kings and may have instigated a Catholic uprising. Instead, Elizabeth chose to do nothing, this meant she could manipulate Mary but left Elizabeth vulnerable to plots against her life and plans to replace her with Mary. Mary’s plight was followed by the Catholic powers, who involved themselves in plots and increased the threats against Elizabeth’s regime. Mary in England was a rallying point for discontented Catholics; particularly the northern nobles whose distance from London made them difficult to control.

In 1569 a marriage was proposed between the Duke of Norfolk and the Queen of Scots, to mount a challenge to Elizabeth. Robert Dudley, who later confessed all to the Queen, supported it. The failed engagement resulted in the Northern Earls Rebellion, which could have been a cause of instability as it had 6000 supporters. However, northern Catholics did not support the rebellion lead by the Earls of Westmorland and Northumberland, it was badly organised and the Earls were poorly motivated. Furthermore Cecil, Walsingham and Elizabeth’s spy network dealt with it effectively. Theoretically the rebellion could have been a cause of instability because the northern counties were difficult to control, but once the rebellion had been put down it gave Elizabeth the opportunity to reduce autonomy in the north and hence the rebellion was no cause of instability.

In 1571 the Ridolfi plot emerged. Ridolfi wanted to put together a group of international Catholics trying to replace Elizabeth with Mary. It could have caused instability to Elizabeth because; it occurred after her excommunication and involved powerful foreign Catholics; Pope Pius V, Duke of Norfolk and Phillip II’s ambassador De Spes. However, the plot was uncovered through letters found in Norfolk’s house, and De Spes was expelled from England. Elizabeth executed Norfolk in order to save Mary, whose status changed from honoured guest to treasonous pariah and she was condemned by Parliament and the Privy Council as the “most notorious whore in the world”. The plot caused no instability as it was discovered early, Norfolk was executed and Mary’s freedom of movement reduced.

Mary was responsible for her own involvement in plots against Elizabeth’s life, and she was actively plotting against her cousin in an attempt to assume the throne. However, although Elizabeth took measures in the form of Walsingham and his spy network, she could have ended plots involving Mary if she had executed her after the first attempt at treason, and so secured her throne; therefore Elizabeth was also responsible for the possibility of instability. But plots did not destabilise the Queen because none were successful and Elizabeth was never close to being overthrown. Therefore the plots involving Mary were not a cause of instability.

In addition to threats at home; various foreign Catholic powers such as; Pope Pius V, when he issued the Regnans in Excelsis; the launch of the Spanish Armada by Phillip II and the Huguenots betrayal of Elizabeth could have caused instability within England because they brought the risk of invasion and the possibility of English Catholics betraying her to foreign powers. In actuality Elizabeth never came close to losing her throne, and countered threats made against her. Mary held no active role in foreign plots and was not central to them.

Positive relations with France were necessary, particularly before Mary’s execution because; Mary was related to the Guise family, who aimed to re-establish Catholicism and Mary, in Scotland. If Scotland renewed the ‘auld alliance’, it could become a stepping-stone through which Catholic forces could invade and threaten Elizabeth. During the French civil war, the Huguenots united with the Guises and turned on her, which could have caused instability. However, Catherine de Medici ruled France during three successive regencies from 1564; limiting the power of the Guises, lessening the threat to Elizabeth- until Mary returned to Scotland and pushed a claim for the throne. Realistically the French were never a cause of instability. They had a civil war to contend with and they were not a completely Catholic country. When Henry of Navarre became King, he passed the Edict of Nantes, which gave the French Protestants freedom of worship. As he employed the same policy of religious tolerance as Elizabeth, it seemed unlikely that Henry IV would invade.

In 1570 Pope Pius V issued the Regnans in Excelsis to encourage the English Catholic rebels. It excommunicated Elizabeth and made killing her legitimate for Catholics. This could have been a cause of instability, as there may have been a Catholic uprising in England, or a religious crusade from abroad. However, the bill had a very limited impact: it was not well publicised; Phillip II recognised Elizabeth as England’s rightful Queen (and did not want to replace her with Mary for fear of an Anglo French alliance) and banned the bull from display in Spain. Elizabeth was religiously tolerant and recognised as England’s rightful Queen by rights of primogeniture so neither her subjects nor foreign powers tried to overthrow her, and so the excommunication was not a cause of instability.

The launch of the Spanish Armada could have caused instability, as it was an attempted invasion of England. However after Leicester’s campaign in the Netherlands, Phillip controlled no deep-sea ports and could not pick up troops. The Armada was defeated because: the shape of the channel meant it was difficult to turn back; the wind blew them northeast; their leader was inexperienced and English long range gunnery and fire ship tactics kept the Spanish from landing. Phillip launched two further Armadas in 1596 and 1597, both failed due to sea conditions. Ultimately Elizabeth was successful in the Anglo Spanish war; national security was secured, her army and navy vastly improved and the Edict of Nantes ended the possibility of a Catholic-counter reformation, therefore it was no cause of instability.

Foreign Catholics may have been a cause of instability because Elizabeth was forced to intervene with troops in various places (such as Scotland and the Netherlands) and she engaged in war with both France and Spain, which could have resulted in a successful invasion of England and Elizabeth being overthrown. In fact foreign threats did little to destabilise Elizabeth; no successful invasions landed, plots were discovered and dealt with before anything became critical; and Mary, Queen of Scots was not involved and so not pushing her claim to the throne. Furthermore, neither France nor Spain was alienated which limited threats against England and prevented instability during Elizabeth’s reign.

Conversely, not all threats in England were in any way related to Mary, Queen of Scots, or indeed Catholicism. ‘Puritans’ was a collective name for those in England who did not believe that the reformation had been completed and there were still too many Catholic elements in the Anglican Church. Instability may have originated from the group because; they undermined the Church from within; they had support from important members of the Anglican Church – including Archbishop Grindal; the practise of ‘prophesying’ increased their numbers and Puritanism offered the mainly illiterate people a simple, direct form of worship with the promise of salvation. Moreover, puritans received support from Lutheran and Calvinist Churches in Europe, which could have led to a religious campaign against Elizabeth. The Puritans were divided into three main groups; Moderates, Separatists and Presbyterians; they were given these titles but in actuality they did not unify themselves under the names. They never became a cause of instability because: Elizabeth acted decisively implementing legislation to hinder them, they were not large in number and they never unified; meaning Elizabeth could put down one small pocket of resistance at a time

The majority of puritans were Moderates they were large in number, but they were not unhappy with the Church of England, there were only small elements they wanted changed, for example; they did not think Priests should wear vestments which looked Catholic. Crucially, they accepted Elizabeth as Supreme Governor of the Church and so caused no instability.

The Separatists wanted every congregation to be independent and rule its self; therefore they threatened Elizabeth and her desire for England to have a single consistent Church. They did not want a royal supremacy or bishops and as such they threatened Elizabeth’s desire for uniformity. However the Separatist movement was not united, and after the publication of the Marprelate Tracts (condemning the Anglican Church and Elizabeth) many people disassociated themselves from the group. Furthermore Elizabeth passed legislation to further eliminate the puritan threat; meaning she could but down one Separatist group at a time – which indicates they posed no threat to her stability.

Only a minority of puritans were Presbyterian, but it was their extreme views that could have caused instability. They did not believe she should be Supreme Governor of the Church and instead their should be a national synod. They wanted to remove all elements of Catholicism from the English Church – something that Elizabeth would never allow because it would have caused outcry among Catholics and could have begun a religious crusade in England. As the most extreme puritan group, the Presbyterians could have been the biggest threat to Elizabeth, but in actuality their numbers were too small to ever cause a problem large enough to endanger stability because they were loyal to Elizabeth as Queen, if not as Supreme Governor, they posed no risk to stability.

Therefore the Puritan threat failed to emerge. Elizabeth vetoed all Parliamentary legislation sympathetic to Puritanism. She allied herself to people like John Whitgift Archbishop of Canterbury and staunch Anglican. Puritanism was not very widespread, and Elizabeth’s Church was a political success. As a monarch she was independent of the Pope, which gave her more authority and powers of patronage not available to other monarchs. Lack of unity within puritan factions and Elizabeth’s decisive action meant that the puritans never successfully challenged stability.

Although situations that had the possibility of causing instability arose during Elizabeth’s reign, none of the threats against her materialised. There was no issue over the succession because Mary was executed in 1587 after which James became the natural successor; he was male, Protestant, and an experienced ruler. It was assumed he would take the throne so Elizabeth did not need to name him. Every plot in England was monitored by Cecil and Walsingham and none came to fruition even when Mary gave her full support; the Northern Earls Rebellion had 6000 supporters and still caused no instability because it was poorly motivated and badly organised. The excommunication had no impact on Elizabeth; it was badly publicised, ignored by Phillip II (the main Catholic power in Europe) there was no religious crusade and the majority of English Catholics lived in the north where they were less danger to stability. The Spanish Armada came the closest to panicking Elizabeth, but it failed, there was no invasion and Elizabeth never came close to losing her throne. The Puritans were too disunited to be effective and all accepted Elizabeth as ruler if not as Supreme Governor and so they caused no instability. In reality, Mary Queen of Scots was not the major cause of instability in Elizabethan England because Elizabeth’s regime was stable throughout; despite threats she never had to increase her security or came close to losing her throne. She was popular with the people free from intimidating plots and ruled securely throughout her reign.

Bibliography: