Free All the Queen's Men by Peter Brimacombe

circumstance. Elizabeth, conservative by nature, did not seek to originate change, but was conscious of its occurrence and acknowledged its significance. She was a great observer and listener and had a good grass-roots appreciation of her kingdom. How fully aware Elizabeth was of the consequences of the sweeping changes taking place throughout her kingdom and the whole of the civilized world is a matter of pure conjecture; what is certain is that the Queen was always careful not to antagonize Parliament and was continually able to retain the goodwill of her people. Elizabeth was always conscientious and industrious, and consistently demonstrated an infallible ability to read the small print of any document or grasp the most minute nuance of debate, together with an appreciation of the implications of the likely outcome of any chosen course of action. To this end, the Queen would sit for long hours studying state papers or mulling over advice she had received. While this undoubtedly avoided unforced errors, it invariably infuriated those who awaited patiently on the monarch’s decision. Any attempt to persuade her to hurry or contemplate doing something that was contrary to her basic beliefs was inevitably cut short by one of her notorious temper tantrums. Logical discussion would be abruptly terminated as her advisers were summarily banished from her presence, often for weeks on end, until the royal rage subsided.
    The Queen could be extremely stubborn and hated the idea of change in the established order of things – she would vacillate endlessly and happily grasp at any straw to avoid making a decision and, while adoring flattery, was rarely open to individual or collective persuasion, unlikely ever to succumb to emotional blackmail or subtle manipulation. Above all, she never gave in to threats or external pressure at times of extreme crisis, always demonstrating great resolution. Queen Elizabeth I was totally in command and needed to be in control and respected. Shrewd men such as William Cecil were always conscious of these facets of Elizabeth’s character and acted accordingly. Others less perceptive or more headstrong, such as the Earl of Essex, ignored them at their peril and paid the ultimate price. Few chose the latter path. It led only to the scaffold.
    Although Elizabeth was undoubtedly a strong personality, she was rarely dogmatic and remained remarkably devoid of preconceived notions. She consistently approached problems calmly and rationally – solutions were to be reached by the use of logic rather than by force of arms, as she had the traditional feminine distaste of the horrors and vainglories of war. She regarded war as a ridiculously masculine preoccupation, unfailingly costing a great deal of money but achieving little of lasting benefit. Fluttering flags and marching bands, days of greatness and glory were not for her. She urged Sir Francis Drake and Sir John Norris, two of her more combative military commanders, ‘not to suffer themselves to be transported with any haviour of vain-glory’. 7 Elizabeth would not have been impressed by Clausewitz’s celebrated military maxim of war being diplomacy by other means, preferring nations to settle their differences by diplomacy. She considered that the Tudor pen should be mightier than medieval sword.
    Elizabeth displayed an equal dislike of extremism, particularly in connection with religious beliefs. She constantly chided Sir Francis Walsingham about his extremist Protestant views, while similar ones expressed by another Privy Councillor Sir Francis Knollys led to some blazing rows, regardless of the fact that Sir Francis was her cousin. Conversely, the Queen was not automatically anti-Catholic. Thomas Tallis, William Byrd, and her chapel organist, Dr John Bull, were all Roman Catholics. She employed them for their outstanding musical abilities not their religious beliefs. Her suspicions of Roman Catholicism derived from her