The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British succession Crisis 1558-1569 Flashcards
Stephan Alford wrote what novel?
He wrote The Early Elizabethan Polity: William Cecil and the British Succession Crisis, 1558-1569.
What is it about?
It is a monograph, an impressive and well-written re-examination of the decision-makers and the processes of deliberation by which they set the tone of the royal government of England for the four and a half decades after 1558; it will be of considerable use to scholars and biographers lor the foreseeable future.
Who was William Cecil?
He was an English statesman, and chief advisor to Elizabeth for most of her reign. The first important political contributions of William Cecil were achieved in his role as the principal secretary to the new queen. In this office, he served as the intermediary between Elizabeth and her Privy Council, and as such he developed a finely-honed sense of the political milieu, and, eventually, an acute understanding of the capacities and limitations of his sovereign. The memoranda and state papers he generated in this arduous and often frustrating position are among the richest sources for the study of the political culture of the period.
What was Alford main argument in ‘The Early Elizabeth Polity’?
Alford argues that while the Privy Council was occasionally hampered by disagreements, in general its members were ideologically united and often personally linked by marital ties, a Cambridge education, and service (usually at a relatively junior level) under the two avowedly Protestant protectorates of Kdward VI. Cecil’s skill in defusing rare factional rifts within the council was an important component in his efforts to shape a clear, sustained policy against what he regarded as the most pernicious threat to the survival of the regime: the hostility of the Catholic powers of Europecoupled with the erratic and menacing behavior of Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland.
What does Alford research highlight?
Alford’s research highlights more than Cecil’s central function as council organizer and high-powered royal functionary; he captures Cecil’s diplomatic ventures, and, more significantly, his intellectual struggles to recalibrate the relations between the monarchs (both Mary ol Scotland and Elizaheth of England) and their subjects. This last dilemma emerged from the marital woes of the two royal kinswomen in the 156Os. Mary, queen of Scots, provocatively married an English aristocrat, Henry Darnley, in 1565 which was widely seen as a challenge to Elizabeth. When the marriage ended in the violent death ol Darnley, Mary was soon overthrown and forced to seek refuge in Elizabeth’s kingdom. Her nineteen-year exile in northern Kngland became an unwaking policy nightmare for Cecil.
What is the next point of Alford argument?
In Elizabeth’s case, she coyly evaded marriage. While she has subsequently won much praise and admiration for avoiding personal and national encumbrances that, for instance, her half-sister Mary I had encountered with her marriage to Philip 11 of Spain, Elizabeth nontheless acted against the advice of her council and thus precipitated a succession crisis by the mid-156Os. How, the question was asked repeatedly, could a Protestant, independent England maintain itself if the queen were to the without making suitable provisions for identifying an heir? Even as Cecil tried by many means to move the queen to do her duty and provide for the succession, he calculated that parliament and council had to become institutions that consistently and “actively participated in the running of the polity and contributed to decisions which affected the future of the realm” (p. 212). Cecil’s ultimate success in bringing this to fruition, despite the fact that a “mixed” polity was anathema to the queen, demonstrates his tenacity and his staying power.
