Category: Monarchy

Following the death of the Queen of England, there have been arguments that the monarch should be abolished. The editorial by Alaeddini (2022) takes the view that before taking the radical decision of abolishing the system, there is a need to change it to ensure that it reflects the current socio-political and economic environment in the United Kingdom. The author agrees that the changes that have been witnessed in the political landscape require a radical change in the countrys leadership. However, they are of the opinion that the change should not involve complete abolishing of the monarchy.

The point of view presented by the editor is that monarchy has a strong cultural symbol not only in the United States but many other nations around the world that still embrace it. This is a conservative position that seeks to retain the political system that has remained in place for several centuries. My personal perspective is that monarch should not be completely abolished. The tradition has defined the political environment in the United Kingdom. Changes have been made to ensure that the real political power in the country lies with the Prime Minister and the parliament. The current position of the king is largely ceremonial, which means that the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations that recognize the leadership of the monarch allow their citizens to directly elect their leaders. My perspective align with social work values in reference to culture. Sometimes retaining ones culture is the truest way of maintaining identity.

The conservative arguments presented above are contradicted by the liberal views presented by the Pitt News Editorial Board in an article published on September 8, 2022. The editors were direct on their view about the monarch. They stated that it was time to completely abolish monarchy because it had served its purpose and was no longer necessary (The Pitt News Editorial Board, 2022). They pointed out the high cost of maintaining the royal family as one of the reasons why this form of governance needs to be abolished. They reported that the system is no longer effective and that King Charles currently lacks any major political relevance. They also cited the recent intrigues in the royal family that involved Prince Harry and his wife Meghan on the one hand, and the royal family on the other.

Their point of view is that if the monarch has failed to embrace diversity within its ranks, then it lacks the moral authority to promote diversity within the society. In fact, it entrenches retrogressive beliefs where people of a given race were considered inferior. The fact that they feel this institution has failed to promote diversity explains why they have embraced the liberal approach. Their views are considered liberal because of their idea of completely eliminating this system and instead, improving the system where people directly elect their leaders as opposed to this hereditary approach. Although I agree with some of the arguments presented in this editorial, I believe that monarchy should be redefined instead of being eliminated. Taking into consideration social work values, monarchy provides stability in the countrys leadership. Over the recent past, cases have been witnessed where prime ministers do not last long in office. However, the presence of the queen, and now the king, has been providing political stability in the country.

References

Alaeddini, A. (2022) Op-ed: Its time to change the British monarchy or completely abolish it. The Washington News. Web.

The Pitt News Editorial Board. (2022). The monarchy should go. The Pitt News. Web.

Thomas Hobbes advocated for the adoption of monarchy as the best form of government in his political philosophy writings particularly in his book, the Leviathan. Hobbes gives his arguments in support of the monarchy mainly through the adoption of the principle of the state of war (Hobbes 12).

According to him, man is naturally violent, and thus, there is a need for the establishment of an authoritative government in the form of a monarchy to check and contain the violent nature of man. This paper tries to give an analytical argument against Hobbes choice of a monarchy as the best form of government.

This will be done by firstly highlighting the main points used by Hobbes in his support for this type of governance, while at the same time identifying flaws and fallacies in these particular arguments fronting for the adoption of monarchy as a form of governance (Kraus 69).

Thomas Hobbes begins his defense for the adoption of monarchy as the best form of government by firstly exploring the concept of power. Here, Hobbes identifies two forms of power, namely: instrumental and natural power.

According to Hobbes, natural power emanates from the physical or mental ability of an individual, whereas instrumental power is acquired by fortune, which subsequently serves as a means to the acquisition of more power in the form of wealth. According to Hobbes, life is purely a continuous struggle to acquire power. All human beings are in Hobbes view, endowed with equal levels of natural power (Kraus 67).

Due to this equality, every individual makes an attempt to gain more instrumental powers to enable him or her compete with others within a state. People are ever striving to enhance their security and reputation, thus leading to chaos within the society. These ambitions if not well checked by an authoritative government easily lead to a state of war, hence men fights against their fellow men.

I therefore rise against Hobbes ideology of Monarchy form of governance as the most significant form of leadership, since in such state of nature that is depicted being flaunt of chaos, there is nothing beneficial can take place in this state of nature.

Furthermore, War and other form of chaotic conditions bring destruction of properties and deprivation of lives, which at the end of the makes lives of the masses from the community to remain miserable. The only remedy to the chaotic state of nature is the creation of a form of authority in which the implementation rules regulations checks the excessive application of mens power.

This authority can only be created through the conferment of all peoples individual power to a single man or a group of men with the authority to make decisions for and on behalf of every member of the society or state (Baumgold 79).

The state of nature as presented by Hobbes may not be visible in the real world because the mere absence of a government is not a better reason to transform human beings to beasts as is the case in the state of war.

In addition, Hobbes uses the ability of the monarchy to compel its subjects as the best way to prevent the state of war. However, the ability to instill fear among the subjects cannot be the best way to prevent chaos within a state. This should rather be the establishment of systems where human nature is freely allowed to flourish.

In Hobbes view, peace, security and the welfare of the people can best be served when there is a close link between the private and the public interests (Hobbes 34). However, Hobbes use of monarchy does not show us how this can occur in monarchy governance.

The issue of individuals freedom is equally essential and it should form part of the basis for determining the success or failure of a particular form of government. Freedom implies that each and every individual is free to do whatever s/he thinks that is right. In this case, people considers different actions and deeds as wrong or right depending on there thinking.

Some individuals like thieves would kill/ murder and hold that action of killing as right, while the religious persons believe this wrong doing. For that matter, giving individuals freedom to make decision on particular matters is hard, and therefore, there is no a guarantee that a monarchy will succeed in meeting the needs of its subjects as it is held by Hobbes.

With the realty of changing conditions/ situations in the community, there is likely hood that monarchies at different times would end up misusing its authority to the disadvantage of the subjects (Baumgold 39).

Peace and security are virtually important in successful governance of any state, and without them, other individual rights such as freedom cannot be enjoyed. In addition, the atmosphere in the state of nature can actually force people to reconsider their resolves and quickly come into an agreement about a system of rules to govern them.

Sometimes it also becomes necessary for a government to exert its authority and fear to the people for sake of its successful existence (Kraus 79). The absence of laws and government is still a cause of chaos in any state; and this may be exemplified by the current situation in Somalia, which a government less state.

However, the above criticisms are still viable because in real sense, there has not been a chaotic society as the one described by Hobbes in the state of nature. Therefore, man is not a violent being even in the absence of laws and government.

In addition, most monarchies in the world have failed to uphold the welfare and interests of the people, and as such, this is not the best form of government integrating the private and public interests within a state. By government exerting force to its people, this only instills fear to the subjects besides deprivation of their freedom/ liberty and their rights.

Simply, with the Monarchy form of leadership mostly ending up in many failing ways and the aspects of leadership, there is no way people living in a such a state of nature can come to an agreement about the type of leadership to govern them so quickly, yet they had not known the rule of law before

Work Cited

Baumgold, Deborah. Hobbess Political Theory. New York: CUP Archive, 1988.print.

Hobbes, Thomas.Leviathan.New York: Mobile reference.2003.Print.

Kraus, Jody. The Limits of Hobbesian Contractarianism.London: Cambridge University Press, 1993.print.

Following the death of the Queen of England, there have been arguments that the monarch should be abolished. The editorial by Alaeddini (2022) takes the view that before taking the radical decision of abolishing the system, there is a need to change it to ensure that it reflects the current socio-political and economic environment in the United Kingdom. The author agrees that the changes that have been witnessed in the political landscape require a radical change in the country’s leadership. However, they are of the opinion that the change should not involve complete abolishing of the monarchy.

The point of view presented by the editor is that monarchy has a strong cultural symbol not only in the United States but many other nations around the world that still embrace it. This is a conservative position that seeks to retain the political system that has remained in place for several centuries. My personal perspective is that monarch should not be completely abolished. The tradition has defined the political environment in the United Kingdom. Changes have been made to ensure that the real political power in the country lies with the Prime Minister and the parliament. The current position of the king is largely ceremonial, which means that the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations that recognize the leadership of the monarch allow their citizens to directly elect their leaders. My perspective align with social work values in reference to culture. Sometimes retaining one’s culture is the truest way of maintaining identity.

The conservative arguments presented above are contradicted by the liberal views presented by the Pitt News Editorial Board in an article published on September 8, 2022. The editors were direct on their view about the monarch. They stated that it was time to completely abolish monarchy because it had served its purpose and was no longer necessary (The Pitt News Editorial Board, 2022). They pointed out the high cost of maintaining the royal family as one of the reasons why this form of governance needs to be abolished. They reported that the system is no longer effective and that King Charles currently lacks any major political relevance. They also cited the recent intrigues in the royal family that involved Prince Harry and his wife Meghan on the one hand, and the royal family on the other.

Their point of view is that if the monarch has failed to embrace diversity within its ranks, then it lacks the moral authority to promote diversity within the society. In fact, it entrenches retrogressive beliefs where people of a given race were considered inferior. The fact that they feel this institution has failed to promote diversity explains why they have embraced the liberal approach. Their views are considered liberal because of their idea of completely eliminating this system and instead, improving the system where people directly elect their leaders as opposed to this hereditary approach. Although I agree with some of the arguments presented in this editorial, I believe that monarchy should be redefined instead of being eliminated. Taking into consideration social work values, monarchy provides stability in the country’s leadership. Over the recent past, cases have been witnessed where prime ministers do not last long in office. However, the presence of the queen, and now the king, has been providing political stability in the country.

References

Alaeddini, A. (2022) Op-ed: It’s time to change the British monarchy or completely abolish it. The Washington News. Web.

The Pitt News Editorial Board. (2022). The monarchy should go. The Pitt News. Web.

There have been numerous debates on whether to abolish or retain the monarchy in Canada. This essay gives the reasons why the monarchy in Canada should not be abolished.

The first reason why the monarchy in Canada should not be abolished is that it creates stability and continuity in the country. The current queen has been on the throne for a period exceeding fifty years. During this period, she has witnessed the coming and going of many Prime ministers (Jackson 145). The country has experienced political instability many times but the Queen has always remained a constant figure during such moments of instability.

The monarchy traces its roots back to the sixth century and has endured all along. As a result it links the country with its past well, which is a valuable component of the country’s national identity.

Canadian politics have been in the past accused of dealing with extremists. The presence of the monarchy in Canada which is the highest elected office, shields the country from communist dictatorship. In comparison with other European countries that have overthrown their ruling monarchies, Canada has remained stable throughout the twentieth century.

The second reason why the monarchy should not be abolished is its impartiality. The queen of Canada does not take political sides and is therefore regarded apolitical. She hardly expresses what she thinks about government policies. As a result, she qualifies to be a perfect figurehead to be presented to the world.

A neutral monarch is instrumental in building good relations with countries that have political scenarios that are completely different from that of Canada. As a representative of Canada in other countries, the monarchy earns the country reasonable revenue through tourism. Every year, many people tour the palaces to learn more about the monarchy (Tidridge 79).

The third reason why the monarchy in Canada should not be abolished is that it promotes patriotism. Monarchs are naturally patriotic than presidents or prime ministers. They exhibit great love for their country and are always committed towards doing the best for the country.

This implies that unlike presidents or prime ministers, monarchs never have conflicts of interest. Ideally, they put a lot of effort in promoting patriotism. In a monarchy, a lot of contribution is channeled towards building the nation hence the undying love for the country. Patriotism interests are therefore served well by the monarchy thus it should not be abolished.

Historical studies that have been conducted throughout the world have attested to the fact that the monarchy plays a critical role in building the civilization of Canada. It is almost impossible to think of civilization in Canada without focusing on the part played by the monarchy in promoting it.

The monarchy is associated with building great things for the country. On the contrary, republics are characterized by destruction. Some are established through bloody means where thousands of people lose lives. For instance, Iran, Serbia and Kosovo among other countries have experienced unrest as a result of destroying monarchies. For the sake of civilization and continued peace, the monarchy in Canada should not be abolished (Trottier 4).

The monarchy in Canada should not be abolished in favor of other forms of governance. This is because it has many advantages that are beneficial to the country. Its destruction may plunge the country into unrest as it has been witnessed in other countries.

Works Cited

Jackson, Robert. Politics in Canada. Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2008. Print

Tidridge, Nathan. Canada’s constitutional Monarchy. Toronto: Dundurn Press Ltd, 2011.Print

Trottier, Jackson. Canadian Monarchy Debate Rekindled: Should We Dare to Depose Our Foreign Head of State. 2009. Web.

Human society is a rather complicated phenomenon, and the history of its development presents many examples to this statement. One of the most problematic points in human history has always been the pursuit of the most adequate form of the political organization of society. This paper will focus on two of these forms – absolute and constitutional monarchy. They developed under the influence of certain economic and political factors which are to be discussed in this work (Stearns, Gosch, & Grieshaber, 2005).

First of all, absolutism is the type of monarchy under which the king has the absolute legislative, executive, court, and other powers in the country. A constitutional monarchy, as the name shows, is a regime based on the division of powers between the king and the legislative body like the Parliament with the supreme power of the Constitution. The 17^th and 18^th centuries are viewed as the period when the absolute monarchy and the constitutional monarchy appeared and developed (Stearns, Gosch, & Grieshaber, 2005).

Thus, the brightest example of the absolute monarchy is the reign of Louis XIV (1643 – 1715) of France. His memoirs reflect his understanding of power and his role in the state government: “I laid a rule on myself to work regularly twice every day, and for two or three hours each time with different persons…” (Brummett et al., p. 504) The Sun King, as Louis is called by historians due to the rising sun painted on his throne, was a person to control all the activities in the country’s politics and economy, and such an unlimited power attracted other countries that tried to follow the French absolutism model: “As much as it was a response to the French example, royal authority was accepted because it promised efficiency and security, the greatest political needs of the time.” (Brummett et al., p. 507) In Russia, Peter I the Great (1682 – 1725) adopted this model of reign as a means to prevent outside interferences in the country’s political and economic affairs.

However, absolutism was destined to fall as the nobilities of the European countries did not want to lose their influence. The very institution of the constitutional monarchy was the result of the struggle of the nobility of, for example, English society for their share of influence upon the state affairs in the economy and foreign policy. In public, this debate was developing around the expression of the nation’s will: “The Stuarts dynasty and its allies upheld the centrality of the monarch as the fundamental principle of government. Arrayed against them were individuals who saw the nation’s will as expressed through Parliament as the primary principle of government.” (Brummett et al., p. 513) The debate resulted in the bloody Civil War of 1642 – 1651 and in the establishment of the Commonwealth instead of the United Kingdom. Rather soon, in 1660, the monarchy was brought back to England but it was purely constitutional as the Parliament took the majority of royal powers and made it impossible for the king to decide anything by himself. The reign of Louis XV (1715 – 1774) in France was marked by similar changes with the only exception that there was no civil war and revolution observed. The huge international debt of France after its wars under Louis XIV made it impossible for the king to preserve his undeniable authority and the constitutional monarchy was introduced (Brummett et al., p. 524).

So, it is obvious that the absolute and constitutional monarchies were the demands of the epoch. Their fall was also conditioned by the specificity of time, the change of the economic and social factors, the development of capitalism, and the rise of the national awareness in the peoples of Europe (Stearns, Gosch, & Grieshaber, 2005).

Works Cited

Brummett, Palmira J., Robert R. Edgar, Neil J. Hackett, George F. Jewsbury, Barbara S. Molony. Civilization: Past & Present, Volume II: From 1300. Longman, 2006

Stearns, Peter N., Stephen S. Gosch, Erwin P. Grieshaber. Documents in World History: The Modern Centuries, Volume 2 (From 1500 to the Present). Longman, 2005.

Though the role of monarchy in the society is often underrated, monarchy, in fact, defines a range of features of the society in question, including its economic and financial status; it defines the national identity of its members and the stability of the society, not to mention the fact that it represents the key source of power within the state. Despite the fact that in the course of the reign of George III, the monarchy was gradually losing its influence and power, its role as the moral compass of the society was enhanced greatly.

Looking back at the change, which the concept of monarchy underwent in the XVIII century, one must admit that the premises for the above-mentioned alterations were quite obvious. George III was obviously trying to reinforce his influence among his subjects by gaining their trust. A closer look at his policy will reveal that he attempted at blending with the nation; therefore, trying to gain people’s trust (Monod 211).

It is quite remarkable that George III must have foreseen the fall of the monarchy and the following necessity to reinforce its influence by putting a stronger emphasis on ethical and moral values. After all, he started enhancing the concept of monarchy as the stronghold of British morality since the very start of his reign (Monod 211). In addition, George came to the realization of the fact that the British monarchy had fallen into “bondage” relatively soon (Monod 210).

Rethinking the effects, which the strategy of George III had on not only his own reputation but also the reputation of monarchy as a whole, one must admit that the effects of his endeavors of being closer to the nation and its troubles left much to be desired. Labeled as “Farmer George” (Monod 264), he was taken quite seriously by most of his subjects; as a result, the disappointment, which followed the discovery of his dishonesty, was truly huge, Monod explains (Monod 264). Therefore, one may assume that it was not the attempt of George II to bring monarchs and people closer that caused a major downfall of the former, but the falsity and the hypocrisy that his actions were shot through.

True, the idea of a king willingly refusing the benefits that his position offers to him and preferring the simple life of a peasant or a gardener, as it was in King George’s case, is very flawed. While a monarch must demonstrate his care for the residents of the kingdom, he must still retain his status without reducing himself to the position and behavior of a peasant. However, in the long run, the strategy chosen by George III could have worked if he had been sincere about it, and if this strategy had not had a double meaning. Regardless of the lack of trust, which George III experienced, the British monarchy persisted; more to the point, it was reinforced, though its role obviously changed from the control over the state economy, politics and finances to the provision of moral standards for the British society (Monod 210).

The transformation, which monarchy went through as George III took power in his hands, is truly stunning. On the one hand, he restricted the power of monarchy considerably. On the other hand, the effect that the monarchy had on the moral fabric of British society was immense. As a result, the monarchs that followed George III were expected to save the state from the republicans and secure the monarchy traditions. British people needed to feel secure, and they demanded that monarchy should give them the security that they were striving for.

Works Cited

Monod, Paul Kléber. Imperial Island: A History of Britain and Its Empire, 1660-1837. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 2009. Print.

Prior to determining what arguments supported and opposed absolute monarchy in the seventeenth century, it is important to give a definition to the term ‘absolutism.’ Absolutism refers to the political theory that made rulers capable of claiming complete sovereignty of their territory. Therefore, an absolute monarch was allowed to make new laws, declare wars, create bureaucracies, dispense justice, and impose taxes without the need for the governing body’s support and approval of his or her decision.

The ideas of absolute monarchy in the 17th century were reinforced by the belief that rulers’ right to govern was given by the power of God. Theorists that explored the institution of absolute monarchy often compared the unlimited authority of rules to the power fathers had in households. Moreover, the chaos and instabilities that the society experienced in the 16th century called for the shift in the manner of government and support of sovereign rules for restoring European life (Cole et al. 855).

Despite the fact that absolute monarchy received extensive criticism, it’s important to mention how it was justified in 17th-century Europe. First, absolutism promised stability as an alternative to the preceding disorders of the “iron century.” For example, Louis XIV of France did not support the ideas of the aristocratic revolt that took place during his childhood. Subsequently, the ruler regarded such revolts as harmful to his persona as well as the French majesty that he represented.

Therefore, Louis XIV made a decision to support absolute monarchy without imposing any limitations on his power in order to help France remain a powerful state. Second, absolute monarchy was associated with a unified system of armed forces and the creation of a centralized bureaucracy that allowed a ruler to collect and spend the financial resources of the state. Despite the fact that creating such a bureaucracy was expensive, it was essential for achieving absolutist goals of exercising royal power. While the system could be criticized for only catering to the needs of one monarch, it was less complicated to follow.

If to explore the document “Bossuet on the nature of monarchical authority,” it can be concluded that absolute monarchs regarded themselves as the ones holding the place of God. Therefore, it was believed that royal authority was sacred, with rulers playing the role of God’s ministers and lieutenants on earth (Cole et al. 358). Filmer, on the other hand, opposed the idea of absolute power being given to humans by God. He wrote, “I cannot find anyone place or text in the Bible where any power is given to people either to govern themselves, or to choose themselves governors, or to alter the manner of government at their pleasure” (qtd in Cole et al. 359).

When examining potential opponents of absolute monarchy, it can be stated that monarchs were extremely threatened by nobles, who refused to give up their political and social power under the pressure of absolutism.

Therefore, in order to strengthen relationships with the nobility, the most powerful monarchs of the 17th century Europe gave enormous privileges and rights to them. For example, Louis XIV developed a system in which nobles were required to depend on the crown for sustaining their privileges; however, their superior place in the society was not undermined. Such a relationship between Louis XIV and the nobility could be regarded as a negotiated settlement rather than an absolute victory of a monarch over the powerful elites (Cole et al. 357).

Opposition to absolute monarchy in Europe could be seen in the steady increase of the powers of governments in countries such as Great Britain and the Netherlands, where monarchs retained their positions but did not have absolute power to rule their country. English political theorists, for example, had an opinion that their government should combine the most effective characteristics of monarchy, nobility, and non-noble elements for achieving the state’s prosperity.

It is important to mention John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government,” in which the author supported the idea of absolute freedom without the government of any kind. The only law, according to Locke, was the law of nature (or the law of reason), which allowed individuals to enforce their rights to life, liberty, and property (Cole et al. 364). Locke was adamant about condemning absolutism and its forms. On the other hand, he supported the idea of a government as an institution for protecting individuals’ rights to freedom and property, with no political authority being able to take these natural rights away (Cole et al. 364).

If to compare the way in which Britain and France chose to deal with the negative consequences of the 16th century, one country took a route towards absolute monarchy while another combined the power of the monarch with the power of the governments and the authority elites. The emergence of an effective system of constitutional monarchy in England was a stark contrast to the absolute monarchy developed by Louis XIV in France. Nevertheless, it is crucial to mention that both systems were effective enough to constrain the threat posed to the monarchy by the class of nobles.

Work Cited

Cole, Joshua, et al. Western Civilizations: Their History & Their Culture. 3rd ed., W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.

Elizabeth I of England can be acclaimed as one of the most famous monarchs not only in Europe, but all over the world and during all the history of humanity. The achievements of her rule are very important for solving a row of difficult problems existing in the country those days and for leading the country on a new level of the world supremacy both in the sea and overland. The queen’s politics can be characterized as a masterpiece of art of strategy and planning. Among her successful policies is her ability to wait before making important decisions or as it is also titled a “delaying” policy. This wise tactics made her far more successful than all her male rivals who were in a constant race to “catch” the queen on some of her mistakes. Generally, the policy of “delaying” in making critical decisions helped the queen to succeed in a countless list of the most problematic issues such as marriage, military actions, religious issue, economic issues and many more.

At a rather early age, Elizabeth appeared in an unprecedented situation for the country: she turned to be the person who was to inherit the throne, and the most unusual situation in this case was her gender. Never before England along with the other countries of the western world had a female ruler, and the society was in doubts concerning this questionable affair. According to Warnicke, ‘In 1558, when Elizabeth I became the third queen regnant of the British Isles, the prevailing models for her reign were not propitious”¹. The strongest political figures in the country were separated into the two camps: those who longed to organize a marriage for the queen to provide a country with a male ruler, or to organize the situation in a way that would enable some other strong political figure to actually rein behind the queen’s back. According to Warnicke, this was explained by the following peculiarity of the way of thinking prevailing those days in the country:

THE England that the first Queen Elizabeth reigned over so gloriously for 45 years was obsessed with [gender issues] and awash with promiscuity. This unrestrained bawdiness was surprising for a nation that worshipped its head of state as an unblemished virgin².

However, all those people who thought in the above mentioned way were strongly mistaken as Elizabeth appeared to be one of the most willful and influential monarchs in the history of the country and the world monarchy in general. According to Warnicke, “from the moment she became queen, she relied on her resources of profound intelligence, flirtatious recklessness and Tudor canniness, aided by a succession of mainly male advisers”³. These unusual and even outstanding character traits were inherited from her mother who managed to become a queen even having no lawful basis for this. Elizabeth became very successful in applying her remarkable intelligence and wisdom for the good of her nation and her own. One of the most important policies the queen developed by means of the use of her intelligence is the policy of “delaying”.

Those days the country was in a variety of complicated circumstances requiring wise and well-thought-of decisions. Among such decisions was the politics of England in the matter of strategic allies made in Europe by means of royal marriages, religious matter of whether England will continue as a Catholic country or will turn the official religion for Protestantism and wars for the supremacy in seas.

In every of the above mentioned situation, the policy of avoidance became a wise strategy. First of all, in the matter of strategic allies made in Europe by means of royal marriages the situation was rather ambiguous, and it even bordered on the issues critically important for the country. Politics was far more important for the queen than her own interests as it is seen from the following statement:

While her closest advisers wanted her to marry to secure the succession to the throne, there were dangers in marriage for a female head of state. Marry a foreign prince – from France or Spain, say — and that would mean subservience or compromise with a foreign power. Marry an English nobleman and she risked joining a faction and encouraging unrest or even civil war. But as long as she held men at bay, she could summon up ‘the spirit and stomach of a man’ and rule as if she were a king rather than an attendant queen. For the country’s sake, she opted for self-denial, but that decision came at a cost⁴.

In this difficult situation the queen chose the policy of avoidance of making decision which helped her to preserve a fragile balance within the country, and with its neighbors.

Further, the next important and very complicated issue was the issue of Catholicism vs. Protestantism. In this area, Elizabeth managed to avoid making her decision for the period which allowed her to prepare emotionally and to collect all the necessary evidences and appealing arguments in order to convince the Parliament in her historical speech. As a result piece was maintained within the country, and a basis for its secure development was established⁵. Additionally, “that Elizabeth’s Church of England joined the Protestant confession, which championed women’s vocation as marriage, caused the status of the already marginalised single woman to begin to decline even further”⁶.

Finally, similar strategy of being not in a hurry while making important decisions is explored in the queen’s politics in the area of military actions including her conflicts with the other precedents for the crown. Elizabeth was waiting for all the important solutions to come by themselves, and even the weather supported her as it was evident in a historical battle with the Spanish Armada. Considering all the above mentioned areas helps to see the queen Elizabeth I as one of the most successful rulers both in the history of the country and of the world. No wonder that Robert Cecil described Elizabeth as “more than a man and in truth somewhat less than a woman”⁷.

Concluding on all the information related above, it should be stated that Elizabeth I of England is a very successful monarch in the history of England whose wisdom and thinking ability separated her from the other representatives of her dynasty. The queen is especially famous for her “avoidance” strategy in postponing important decisions for “a better day”. Such strategy allowed her to see all the consequences of her decisions, to understand who can be classified as her real supporters and who can be seen as a dangerous enemy. The queen is also famous for outstanding love for her country and her nation which enabled her to sacrifice her own interests for the benefit of England.

Works Cited

“A Tudor Man about Town; the Earl of Leicester Was the Man Who Almost Swept Queen Elizabeth I off Her Feet. Chris Upton Explores His Relationship with the People of His Midland Empire.” The Birmingham Post (England). 2011: 28. Web.

Elizabeth. The Golden Speech of Queen Elizabeth to Her Last Parliament, 30 November, Anno Domini, 1601. London: Printed by Tho. Milbourn, and are to be sold at his house in Jewen-Street, 1659.

“Virgin Queen? She Was a Right Royal Minx! Nightly Visits to a Courtier’s Bedroom. Outrageous Flirting and Jealous Rages – with a Servant Paid Hush Money to Cover It All Up. A Major New Series Reveals the Secret Passions of Elizabeth I; Elizabeth and the Men She Loved.” The Daily Mail (London, England). 2011: 22. Web.

Warnicke, Retha. “Elizabeth I: Gender, Religion and Politics: Did It Matter the Fifth Tudor Monarch Was a Woman Rather Than a Man? Retha Warnicke Investigates”. History Review 58 (2007): 30 – 42. Print.

Footnotes

1. Warnicke, Retha. “Elizabeth I: Gender, Religion and Politics: Did It Matter the Fifth Tudor Monarch Was a Woman Rather Than a Man? Retha Warnicke Investigates”. History Review 58 (2007): 30 – 42. Print.
2. Warnicke, Retha. “Elizabeth I: Gender, Religion and Politics: Did It Matter the Fifth Tudor Monarch Was a Woman Rather Than a Man? Retha Warnicke Investigates”. History Review 58 (2007): 30 – 42. Print.
3. Warnicke, Retha. “Elizabeth I: Gender, Religion and Politics: Did It Matter the Fifth Tudor Monarch Was a Woman Rather Than a Man? Retha Warnicke Investigates”. History Review 58 (2007): 30 – 42. Print.
4. “Virgin Queen? She Was a Right Royal Minx! Nightly Visits to a Courtier’s Bedroom. Outrageous Flirting and Jealous Rages – with a Servant Paid Hush Money to Cover It All Up. A Major New Series Reveals the Secret Passions of Elizabeth I; Elizabeth and the Men She Loved.” The Daily Mail (London, England). 2011: 22. Web.
5. Elizabeth. The Golden Speech of Queen Elizabeth to Her Last Parliament, 30 November, Anno Domini, 1601. London: Printed by Tho. Milbourn, and are to be sold at his house in Jewen-Street, 1659.
6. “Virgin Queen? She Was a Right Royal Minx! Nightly Visits to a Courtier’s Bedroom. Outrageous Flirting and Jealous Rages – with a Servant Paid Hush Money to Cover It All Up. A Major New Series Reveals the Secret Passions of Elizabeth I; Elizabeth and the Men She Loved.” The Daily Mail (London, England). 2011: 22. Web.

Queen Elizabeth, I was born to Anne Boleyn and Henry VIII in 1533. She became the queen of England in the year 1558 and ruled up to 1603. She was an influential leader and her reign put England on the road to becoming a global political and economic power. Her decision not to marry was due to political reasons and she influenced arts and religion.

The queen never got married albeit the many marriage proposals that she received. Among her suitors were Archduke Charles, Philip II of Spain, Adolphus the Duke of Holstein, and Robert Dudley of Earl. She used her prospect of marriage to her advantage to keep off potential enemies of England. During her reign, Spain and France were powerful countries and a big threat to England. Her courting of foreign Princes ensured that England was not attacked and this tact worked on various occasions as she managed to balance the two powerful countries to avert a possible attack on her country. She used her hand as a diplomatic weapon; however, she never married any of her suitors. Queen Elizabeth, I was a pragmatic leader and she knew that if she married a foreigner she would put England’s future in jeopardy by relinquishing her power to her husband. She was expected to marry and the parliament petitioned her about marriage. Her reply was “this shall be for me sufficient, that a marble stone shall declare that a Queen, having reigned such a time died a virgin” (Hibbert 250). According to her, she was already married to her Kingdom. In her address to parliament, she raised her coronation ring and said “The pledge of this my wedlock and marriage with my kingdom” (Greenblatt 23). She put the kingdom before herself” yet when the welfare of my state was concerned, I dared not indulge my own inclinations” (Thomas 174).

When Elizabeth I descended to power there was a strong division between the Protestants and the Catholics. Her predecessor Queen Mary I was a catholic and during her reign, she prosecuted Protestants thus raising a sharp division between Catholics and Protestants. Elizabeth leaned more on Protestantism but choose a conciliatory ground because she knew how divisive religion could become. Elizabeth had to settle the church position in England finally. Retaining Catholicism was not politically viable. She established the Church of England but the religious conflicts continued as Catholics and Puritans attacked it (Crane 1). The Catholic Church was still powerful and some of Mary’s loyalists posed a threat to the crown. Thus, Elizabeth looked for a religious compromise that would mitigate the threat and at the same time retain the loyalty of the catholic sympathizers. Therefore, using the Church of England she created a middle ground and in 1585 in a speech to parliament, she retaliated this position by saying that “if I were not persuaded that mine were the true way of God’s will, God forbid I should live to prescribe it to you” (Halsall 1). To date the identity of the Church of England is alive.

Queen Elizabeth, I had a lot of influence in arts. Her reign was known as the Elizabethan Age due to her influence in the arts. Her writings were powerful and shaped people’s opinions about her. Elizabeth influenced authors like William Shakespeare, Edmund Spencer, and Christopher Marlowe among others. After she became the queen, women began to gain a voice in the arts. Moreover, she was a poet herself and an intelligent woman (Crane 1). Among her greatest works was the speech she gave to the army during the Spanish Armada war. In this speech, she proved she was a leader who was not afraid to defend her country even if it meant putting her life at risk. ” I have come amongst you at this time… to live or die amongst you all, to lay down for God and for my kingdom and for my people my honor and my blood even in the dust”(“Queen Elizabeth” 1). She encouraged the English army to fight on and win the war because she would be with them in the war “I myself will take up arms; I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field” (“Queen Elizabeth” 1). Elizabeth displayed her leadership qualities in this speech by admitting her faults, “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a King of England too” (“Queen Elizabeth” 1). She was not a leader shy of admitting her weaknesses.

The Queen used her works to retaliate her love for her subjects and thus gained their loyalty. For instance, in a speech, she told the people that “There is no jewel, be it of never so rich a price, which I set before this jewel: I mean your love. For I do esteem it more than any treasure of riches… I count the glory of my crown that I have reigned with your love” (Halsall 1). On the other hand, she expressed her feelings for instance, in the poem On Monsieur’s Departure she writes “I grieve and dare not show my discontent… I am and not, I freeze and yet am burned,” concluding: “or let me live with some more sweet content, / Or die and so forget what love ere meant” (Crane 1). This shows her sorrow because of disappointment in love. More importantly through her works, Queen Elizabeth communicated with her subjects and gained popularity.

Queen Elizabeth I remains one of the greatest monarchs in England’s history. During her rule, there was peace at home and abroad. She managed to maintain England’s stability. Her leadership was incredible and her decision to remain single influenced her reign greatly. The Church of England today is proof of her influence in religion. Moreover, the artists document her influence on arts and she came across as a passionate queen who cared about the welfare of her subjects above all else just, as a good leader should.

Works Cited

Crane, Thomas Mary. Queen Elizabeth 1 (1533-1603). 2010. Web.

Greenblatt, Miriam. Rulers and Their Times: Elizabeth I and Tudor England. New York: Benchmark Books, 2002. Print.

Halsall, Paul. Modern History Sourcebook: Queen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558-1603) Selected Writing and Speeches. Fordham. Ed. 1998. Web.

Hibbert, Christopher. The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1991. Print.

Thomas, Jane Resh. Behind the Mask: The Life of Queen Elizabeth I. New York: Clarion, 1998. Print.