End of the reign: succession, decline and legacy
The Final Years: Decline and Challenges
The last decade of Elizabeth’s reign (1593–1603) stands in stark contrast to the triumphalism of the Armada’s defeat. An expensive war in Ireland, the continuing conflict with Spain, harvest failures in the 1590s, rising prices, tensions at court and an aging Queen who refused to name a successor all combined to create a mood of uncertainty and frustration. The Elizabethan political system, which had worked brilliantly when Elizabeth was energetic and in command, began to show its weaknesses as the Queen grew old and her early advisers died.
The Death of Lord Burghley, 1598
The death of Lord Burghley in August 1598 was a significant moment. Cecil had been the linchpin of Elizabethan government for almost forty years. His cautious, pragmatic approach had steered England through the most dangerous moments of the reign. His son Robert Cecil stepped into his administrative role and served as Secretary of State from 1596, but the dynamic of the court changed. Without Burghley’s steady hand, factional rivalry between Robert Cecil’s cautious group and the more aggressive faction surrounding the Earl of Essex intensified.
Monopolies were royal licences granting exclusive rights to produce or sell a particular product — salt, starch, playing cards, vinegar and many others. Elizabeth used them extensively to reward favourites and raise money without parliamentary taxation. By the 1590s, however, the system had become deeply unpopular: monopolies raised prices for consumers and restricted trade. MPs in the Parliament of 1601 complained bitterly, and an MP reportedly asked whether bread itself would be monopolised. Elizabeth responded with her characteristic skill: rather than defending the system, she withdrew the worst monopolies before Parliament could force a confrontation, and met a delegation of MPs herself to express sympathy with their grievances. This episode became known as the ‘Golden Speech’ of 1601, in which she reportedly expressed her deep love for her people and her gratitude for their loyalty.
The monopolies crisis of 1601 showed both Elizabeth’s political skill and the growing frustrations of her later reign. She defused the confrontation by withdrawing the most unpopular monopolies before Parliament could force a legal challenge — a tactful retreat that was publicly presented as royal generosity rather than defeat.
The Essex Rebellion, 1601
Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, was the last of Elizabeth’s great court favourites. He was young, dashing and ambitious — the son-in-law of Francis Walsingham — and Elizabeth had shown him exceptional favour, granting him military commands and a lucrative licence on sweet wines. But Essex was erratic and prone to rage; he had publicly quarrelled with Elizabeth to her face on at least one occasion. In 1599 he was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to crush the rebellion led by Hugh O’Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Instead, he negotiated an unauthorised truce with Tyrone, returned to England without permission and burst into Elizabeth’s private chambers to justify himself.
Stripped of his offices and his wine licence (which was his main source of income), Essex grew increasingly desperate. On 8 February 1601 he rode through the streets of London with around 200 followers, calling on the citizens to rise against his enemies at court — whom he accused of being traitors advising the Queen poorly. The citizens did not rise; Essex’s coup collapsed almost immediately. He was arrested, tried for treason and executed on 25 February 1601. Elizabeth reportedly wept when she signed his death warrant. The rebellion exposed the dangerous personal dependencies that the Elizabethan court system had created — favourites could become liabilities when favour was withdrawn.
Essex’s failure in Ireland (1599) — making an unauthorised truce with Tyrone and returning without permission — and his subsequent loss of court favour led directly to his rebellion of February 1601. He was executed on 25 February 1601 after his attempt to raise London against his enemies at court collapsed immediately.
The Succession Question
Throughout her reign Elizabeth refused to name a successor, believing that naming an heir would create a focus for opposition and destabilise her own position. The succession question became acute in her final years as it became clear she would never marry. James VI of Scotland, the Protestant son of Mary Queen of Scots, was the strongest claimant. Robert Cecil had secretly been corresponding with James for months before Elizabeth’s death to ensure a smooth transition.
Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603 at Richmond Palace, aged sixty-nine, after several weeks of declining health. She had been Queen for forty-four years. Within hours of her death, Robert Cecil publicly proclaimed James VI of Scotland as James I of England. The transition was peaceful — the succession problem Elizabeth had refused to resolve for forty years was resolved almost instantaneously after her death.
Elizabeth’s legacy is genuinely complex. On one reading, she was an extraordinarily successful monarch who presided over a religious settlement that brought stability, who defeated the Spanish Armada, who oversaw the flowering of English literature and theatre, and who ruled for forty-four years in a period when female rule was deeply suspect. On another reading, she left serious problems unresolved: the succession was uncertain until the moment of her death; the war with Spain was still dragging on; the Church settlement pleased no one fully; poverty and vagrancy were worse at the end of her reign than the beginning; and her refusal to invest in Ireland left a festering conflict that would trouble her successors for decades. Judgement depends on what you prioritise — stability and survival, or resolution of underlying problems.