Information on the significance of Queen Elizabeth’s reign is easy to come by. To be sure, her reign had one of the longest lasting effects and influences on post-Crusades Western Civilization, especially in England and the United States.
One thing Queen Elizabeth never did during her reign was marry. There had been many rumors of her involvement with several men, but nothing that ever manifested itself in anything resembling matrimony. Because Elizabeth was shrewd—some would say pessimistic—she would only use matrimonial prospects for political manipulation. Some say she never married because her choices were limited to Catholic foreigners. Elizabeth, a devout Protestant, refused to compromise.
Others have also argued that had Elizabeth married, she would have been subject to her husband’s judgment, as a female ruler was “not fit” to decide important matters. This is a blatant fallacy, as her immediate predecessor had already established a precedent of aggressive female regnancy. Queen Mary (while influenced, surely) was not subject solely to her husband’s judgment, and he, Phillip II, was the most powerful ruler in Europe. Her reign is remembered as her reign, despite (because of) her mercilessness.
Elizabeth would not have had to marry a Catholic either. Phillip II, and the Duke of Alençon were the most prominent suitors, but obviously not the best choice. Yes, the religious problems provided by these Catholic gentlemen would have sent the country into an uproar. There were, however, other Protestant suitors whom she could have considered: Princes Eric and Frederick of Sweden and Denmark respectively, not to mention countless English suitors. But marrying an Englishman would cause its own set of political difficulties. If she decided to marry within the country, the married family would undoubtedly try to exert peerage influence. It also may have been looked at as uncouth or bad policy not to marry foreign royalty. But it was considered more impolitic not to marry at all, especially for a female.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR US:
Queen Elizabeth set the stage for the English Civil War (1642-1651).
Despite constant urgings from her political advisors, the Virgin Queen adamantly refused to marry. By this abstinence she allowed the Tudor family line to abdicate and the Stuart line to overtake the throne. The Stuarts, being staunchly Scottish (and mostly Catholic), had an opposing agenda for the kingdom beginning with her distant cousin, King James I. Queen Elizabeth knew well of King James’s succession, but took no steps to proactivate a solution; in fact she consented to his inheritance of the throne. King James’s rule reignited religious feuds that had remained largely dormant under Elizabeth. He also began to set a precedent of despotic rule, an attitude which he instilled in his son, Charles I, which ended in his beheading at the end of the Civil War.
Queen Elizabeth also completely foiled the exploitation of the New World. We remember her attempt as the Lost Colony, but I am sure her contemporaries remembered them as Lost Innumerable Riches. Had she done this properly, took every advantage of the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, she would have established loyal colonies in Virginia, the Carolinas, and New England. At the very least she could have passed this task on to a willing successor. Instead she left this task to her antagonistic successor, James I, who forced a haphazard remnant into Virginia and a disenfranchised colony into New England. This would have undoubtedly led to a different type of America as we know it; however, the notion of rebellion would never have been as prominent. Thankfully for us, Elizabeth never married or had issue…
