The arguments in Extract C are the most convincing. The main argument put forward by the
extract is that Elizabeth was secure in her decisions and was conscious of her royal
prerogative which she was not prepared to surrender. This is shown in “she was absolute in
her own resolution” and “she knew her power; her instinct to power was infallible”.This is
convincing as Elizabeth was an intelligent and sophisticated woman who through her
traumatic adolescence was able to develop political skills that ensured her survival in difficult
times. She was conscious of her royal prerogative in issues such as a marriage and the
succession and wasn’t easily influenced by her privy councillors in these matters. For
example in 1567 the Commons petitioned Elizabeth to marry and name a successor.
Elizabeth established her authority by reminding the Commons of her status as the monarch:
“I am your anointed Queen, I will never be by violence constrained to do anything”. She also
further forbade discussion on the subject of her marriage and the succession after promising
that she would marry. Therefore, the argument that Elizabeth was secure in her own
decisions and authority is convincing as she continuously established her authority in the
face of challenges. Another argument put forward by the extract is that Elizabeth would often
procrastinate on important decisions. This is shown in “she repeatedly postponed important
decisions….. She could procrastinate for years”. This argument is very convincing as in
multiple instances Elizabeth put off decisions which needed to be made. For example, in the
years 1586 and 1587 Elizabeth’s councillors sought to persuade Elizabeth, who had been
reluctant to press for the execution of another anointed monarch, to agree to the execution
of Mary Queen of Scots. Elizabeth refused to make a decision and there were even four
months of delay in which Elizabeth avoided ordering the execution. Even when parliament
petitioned Elizabeth following Burghleys attempt to pressure Elizabeth, she still refused to
sign the warrant; it was only finally signed once Walsingham revealed the Stafford Plot.
Therefore, the argument that Elizabeth often postponed important decisions is convincing as
she did so in the case of Mary Queen of Scots execution. Another argument put forward by
the extract is that Elizabeth was not susceptible to manipulation from her privy councillors.
This is shown in “When her privy councillors tried to manipulate her, they were rarely
successful”. This argument is less convincing as there were instances where she was
pressured/manipulated by her privy councillors. For example, Elizabeth was manipulated by
Dudley who encouraged Elizaveth to put military pressure on the French crown when it was
in a weak state due to conflict between Catholic and Protestants. However, the Huguenot
army which Elizabeth had sponsored was defeated and so intervention in France was a
failure Therefore, the argument that Elizaveth was unable to be manipulated is less
convincing as she was pressured into some decisions by her privy councillors. However, this
does not detract from the overall validity of the main interpretation that Elizabeth was a
woman who was secure in herself and her authority as she may have been accepting
counsel from Dudley rather than being manipulated by him. Overall, the arguments in Extract
C are the most convincing.
The arguments in extract B in relation to Elizabeth's minister are slightly convincing. The
main interpretation is that there was less conflict caused by factionism. This is shown in “ the
court was never completely free from conflict. But such conflict was less the product of
faction amongst countries”. This argument is convincing as the new structure of Elizabeth's
government helps to prevent factional rivalry from getting out of hand. For example, during
her reign no single minister had complete control over patronage and there were various
influential families such as the Parrs and the Boleyns in the council which balanced each
other out. With this strategy family connections overcame religious differences, reducing the
extract is that Elizabeth was secure in her decisions and was conscious of her royal
prerogative which she was not prepared to surrender. This is shown in “she was absolute in
her own resolution” and “she knew her power; her instinct to power was infallible”.This is
convincing as Elizabeth was an intelligent and sophisticated woman who through her
traumatic adolescence was able to develop political skills that ensured her survival in difficult
times. She was conscious of her royal prerogative in issues such as a marriage and the
succession and wasn’t easily influenced by her privy councillors in these matters. For
example in 1567 the Commons petitioned Elizabeth to marry and name a successor.
Elizabeth established her authority by reminding the Commons of her status as the monarch:
“I am your anointed Queen, I will never be by violence constrained to do anything”. She also
further forbade discussion on the subject of her marriage and the succession after promising
that she would marry. Therefore, the argument that Elizabeth was secure in her own
decisions and authority is convincing as she continuously established her authority in the
face of challenges. Another argument put forward by the extract is that Elizabeth would often
procrastinate on important decisions. This is shown in “she repeatedly postponed important
decisions….. She could procrastinate for years”. This argument is very convincing as in
multiple instances Elizabeth put off decisions which needed to be made. For example, in the
years 1586 and 1587 Elizabeth’s councillors sought to persuade Elizabeth, who had been
reluctant to press for the execution of another anointed monarch, to agree to the execution
of Mary Queen of Scots. Elizabeth refused to make a decision and there were even four
months of delay in which Elizabeth avoided ordering the execution. Even when parliament
petitioned Elizabeth following Burghleys attempt to pressure Elizabeth, she still refused to
sign the warrant; it was only finally signed once Walsingham revealed the Stafford Plot.
Therefore, the argument that Elizabeth often postponed important decisions is convincing as
she did so in the case of Mary Queen of Scots execution. Another argument put forward by
the extract is that Elizabeth was not susceptible to manipulation from her privy councillors.
This is shown in “When her privy councillors tried to manipulate her, they were rarely
successful”. This argument is less convincing as there were instances where she was
pressured/manipulated by her privy councillors. For example, Elizabeth was manipulated by
Dudley who encouraged Elizaveth to put military pressure on the French crown when it was
in a weak state due to conflict between Catholic and Protestants. However, the Huguenot
army which Elizabeth had sponsored was defeated and so intervention in France was a
failure Therefore, the argument that Elizaveth was unable to be manipulated is less
convincing as she was pressured into some decisions by her privy councillors. However, this
does not detract from the overall validity of the main interpretation that Elizabeth was a
woman who was secure in herself and her authority as she may have been accepting
counsel from Dudley rather than being manipulated by him. Overall, the arguments in Extract
C are the most convincing.
The arguments in extract B in relation to Elizabeth's minister are slightly convincing. The
main interpretation is that there was less conflict caused by factionism. This is shown in “ the
court was never completely free from conflict. But such conflict was less the product of
faction amongst countries”. This argument is convincing as the new structure of Elizabeth's
government helps to prevent factional rivalry from getting out of hand. For example, during
her reign no single minister had complete control over patronage and there were various
influential families such as the Parrs and the Boleyns in the council which balanced each
other out. With this strategy family connections overcame religious differences, reducing the
