The death of Queen Elizabeth was, well…a shock. She had been Queen for so long that virtually
nobody around could remember a previous Monarch, and despite her age she'd always been in such good
health, and it only declined recently. And when she went off to her favorite retreat to recover
everybody simply assumed that she would, as she always had. But she didn't. And her death
represented a real risk to the realm, because unlike the death of her cousin, and namesake
some 419 years later, Queen Elizabeth the First died without having produced a direct heir. The
death and funeral of Elizabeth the First, Queen of England and Ireland, deserves to be remembered.
Elizabeth the First was crowned at the age of 25 on January 15, 1559. She came to rule in a
period of relative instability for the British Monarchy after relatively brief reigns of her
half-siblings Edward VI and Mary the First. Her half-sister's five-year rule had been defined by
her attempts to reverse the English Protestant Reformation. Her attempts at reestablishing
Roman Catholicism had resulted in more than 280 religious executions earning the eternal enmity
of protestant writers that described her as “Bloody Mary”. The Counter Reformation had
thrown suspicion at, and had briefly resulted in the imprisonment of her half-sister Elizabeth.
While history has a mixed view of the rule of Mary the First it is undeniable that she had
become deeply unpopular by the end of her reign, and moreover, had failed to produce an heir.
Elizabeth was a Protestant and her ascension to the throne represented a significant shift
in the conflict that had caused much strife in England since their father's break with
the Catholic church in 1533. Because of this Elizabeth the First coronation has
received extraordinary scholarly attention. British historian, and former director of
the National Portrait Gallery in the Victorian Albert Museum Roy Strong noted in his 2005 book,
Coronation: A History of Kingship in the British Monarchy, “No other Royal entry has attracted as
much scholarly intention as that of Elizabeth the First. More and more it has been realized
to be a meticulously planned propaganda enterprise on behalf of what was expected
of the incoming regime. Those who organized and wrote the pageants were Protestants.”
But ironically, despite a very eventful reign the end of her
rule seems to have drawn less attention from historians than the beginning did.
The coronation service was representative of the ability of Elizabeth the First to navigate
The bitter divide between English Protestants and Catholics via the so-called Elizabethan
settlement. Passing various acts through Parliament that established the Theology and
Liturgy of the Church of England while making appeals to Catholics and Lutherans. While the
settlement, seen as a middle ground intended to end religious turmoil, failed ultimately to
end religious disputes in the Kingdom which would become clear later during the English Civil War,
it allowed Elizabeth to maintain a period of stability and ascendancy for her people.
Another source of potential conflict was over who the queen would marry, an issue made more
relevant by the controversial marriage between Mary the First and Philip II of Spain, a marriage
that was deeply unpopular in England. Elizabeth never married nor did she produce an heir. There
are many theories as to why but BBC Bitesize, a reference for school-aged children in the United
Kingdom notes that her refusal to marry was putting the security of England before herself.
Bitesize explains, “Staying single meant that Elizabeth could keep sole control over English
affairs, namely government and religion. Elizabeth had a range of suitors from different countries.
Her refusal to choose between them allowed her to keep her options open in foreign affairs,
whilst at the same time this enabled her to play countries off against each other
making her a strong negotiator. Royal.UK, the official website to the royal family notes,
“Elizabeth chose never to marry. If she had chosen a foreign Prince he would have drawn England into
foreign policies for his own advantages, as in her sister Mary's marriage to Philip of Spain.
Marrying a fellow Countryman could have drawn the queen into factional infighting. Elizabeth
used her marriage prospects as a political tool in foreign, and domestic policies.
Moreover, unlike a king, in attempting to produce an heir, a queen faced the very real threat of
death in childbirth.” And, despite having no heir, Elizabeth steadfastly refused to name one. Again
there is speculation as to why. A 2018 article on the website History Hit speculates that given
her own experience as Heir Apparent she was trying to protect a presumptive Heir telling Parliament,
“I was first in line to the throne during my sister's reign, and not only is it not a good
idea for that person, but it isn't a good idea for the realm. Immediately that person becomes a focus
for plots.`` That is if she were to name an heir, rebels would be inevitably drawn to involve that
person in plots to overthrow Elizabeth; in fact one of the most likely heirs, Mary Queen of Scots,
granddaughter of Henry VII's sister was drawn into such a plot leading to her execution in 1587.
As with any choice to marry, naming any one of the several potential heirs could itself lead
to instability and strife, and refusing to name one allowed her to play opposing sides against
each other. Finally, as Bitesize says, “She remained the focus of all power since there was
no apparent successor.” Thus, Elizabeth managed to maintain a delicate balance in a difficult era,
one which would enhance her reputation both in her own time, and with future historians.
As with any Monarch, historians disagree over the effectiveness of her rule. To some she was a
truly great Monarch whose reign took England from obscurity to world power, who ruled over a golden
age of literature that included Shakespeare, and Marlow. She was remembered for maritime victories
in the exploits of Francis Drake, and Walter Raleigh. Hourly History's 2017 publication,
Queen Elizabeth: A Life From Beginning to End, concludes that a queen for 45 years Elizabeth's
Reign became known as the Elizabethan era, a golden age of exploration triumph over foreign
aggressors and relative peace that prompted the beginnings of the English Renaissance.
Others portray her as being indecisive, and avoiding problems rather than solving
them. And over time, her reputation has gone through quite a lot of historical revision.
But you cannot question that her reign was one of relative peace and stability in a time of great
turmoil throughout Europe. In her last speech to Parliament on November 30th 1601 she said,
“We think ourselves most fortunately born under such a star as we have been enabled by God's power
to have saved you under our Reign from foreign foes, from tyrant's rule, and from your own ruin.
And do confess that we pass not so much to be a queen, as to be a queen of such subjects for whom
God has witnessed without boast or vaunt, we would willingly lose our life, or see such to perish.”
That she managed to save her small and isolated realm from foreign foes, from tyrant rule,
and from their own ruin is an extraordinary feat for a woman whose legitimacy, and right
to rule was questioned from the start. And who navigated potential division with compromise.
But by any measure Elizabeth's Reign was a success only in that she was able to maintain her kingdom,
and her reign for some four and a half decades at a time when the average life expectancy of
an Englishman was just 41 years. But her death remains in many ways a mystery. On their website,
the Royal Museums of Greenwich make a claim that many today would find startling. Cause
of Elizabeth's death remains a hotly contested subject, that is, we don't even know how she died.
In her later years as friends and advisors passed away she became withdrawn,
Royal Museums of Greenwich writes, “Towards the end of her life Elizabeth again to suffer
from bouts of melancholy following the deaths of several of her close companions, including her
long-serving lady in waiting Catherine Howard and former favorite Robert Devereaux Earl of Essex.”
In November 1602, her health began to fail. A Chronicle of her life,
The History of the most Renowned and Victorious Princess Elizabeth, Late Queen of England,
written by one William Camden begun in 1607, and published in 1630 reads, “The queen,
which hitherto enjoyed her found health by reason of her abstinence from wine and most temperate
diet. Born now in her clementarial year to with the 70th year of her age, began to be afflicted
with some weaknesses of both health and old age, which the foulness of the weather had increased.”
The website, Get History notes that at Christmas that year, her godson Sir John Harrington visited
her and wrote his impressions in a letter to his wife. “Our dear Queen,
my Royal godmother, and this state's natural mother doth now bear show of human infirmity.
“In January,” Camden writes, “that she moved from Westminster to Richmond, to enjoy quite
the best help of old age.” The website the Tudor Society explains, “The month is January 1603,
Elizabeth is visibly unwell and in an unrecoverable state of melancholy, and
has decided to retire to her favorite residence at Richmond Palace. The palace, on the River Thames,
had been built in 1598 by her grandfather Henry VII after the original 12th century building was
destroyed in a fire. It was a favorite residence for Elizabeth, there her health slowly failed.
Camden writes, “In the beginning of her sickness her gums swelled and quickly abated again. Then
her appetite by little and little failed her, and with all, she gave herself over to melancholy.”
As her health failed the question of her heir became more critical, but Hourly History notes,
“Her Secretary of State Robert Cecil had been working diligently behind the scenes
to pave the way for King James IV of Scotland's succession on the event of Elizabeth's death.”
Cecil had given advice to both Elizabeth and James that had helped to maintain their relationship
but she still refused to openly acknowledge him as her Heir. Hourly History writes, “If Elizabeth had
been touchy about the issue of succession while still a young woman, the subject was positively
taboo by now.” Still, a letter she wrote to James on January 5th 1603 that starts with, “My very
good brother,” and concludes with, “Proceeding from a heart that shall ever be filled with the
sure affection of your loving and friendly sister Elizabeth R.” made it clear that she supported
Cecil's claim. There are at least two stories of her formal appointment of James as her heir,
and one she acknowledged by hand gesture, as by then her illness had left her unable to speak.
Camden writes that she informed the Privy Council, “My Throne is the Throne of Kings. I would not
that any less should succeed me. I will that a king succeed me, and who but my nearest kinsmen,
the King of Scots.” While Cecil took clear steps to watch other potential claimants,
Elizabeth, despite producing no heir of her own, and naming no heir until she was obviously dying,
still managed to ensure a peaceful transition. Although Camden writes even that late announcement
resulted in politics. “But when the rumor was going rife that her sickness increased,
and that as she had always done before in the prime of her age so most of all now she refused
the help of all physics, it is incredible with what flying speed Puritans, papist and ambitious
persons of all sorts flattered, and others, every one of them forward for their own hopes posted
night and day, by sea and by land, to Scotland to adore the rising king and gain his favor.”
Then Camden writes, “In the beginning of March a heavy dullness with the forwardness familiar to
old age began to lay hold on her.” A particular note was her coronation ring, Kevin writes,
“The courtiers do also report that she commanded that the ring wherewith she had been joined,
as if it were in marriage to her kingdom at her inauguration, and she had never taken off, to be
filed off from her finger for that it was grown into the flesh that it could not be drawn off.
Which was taken as a sad presage as it pretended that the marriage to her kingdom contracted by the
ring would be dissolved.” “Less than a week later,” he continues, “the 24th of March,
which was the eve of the Annunciation of the Virgin, she was called out of the prison
of her body into an everlasting country in heaven, most quietly departing this life.”
She had both refused to see physicians and had refused to allow a post-mortem
so the actual cause of her death remains in question.
The most popular theory was that she died from blood poisoning caused by her regular use of a
skin whitener called Venetian ceruse that contained lead, although other suggestions
are that an infection of the tonsils which explains some of her symptoms. Cancer which
might explain her quickly wasting, or pneumonia resulting from her weakened immune system.
“Despite the realm suffering due to the cost of wars and bad harvest, non the less,” the
website of Westminster Abbey writes, “Her death at Richmond Palace on 24th March 1603 was an occasion
of universal mourning. She was encased in lead and placed in a wooden coffin. She first lay
and stayed at Richmond, and then was removed by a torch-lit barge by night to Whitehall.”
The 1823 book, Relics of Literature, notes a poem by an unknown author held in a period manuscript.
“The queen was brought by water to Whitehall. At every stroke the oars did tears let fall.
More clung about the barge, fish underwater wept out their eyes of pearl, and swum blind after.”
The online Tutor Travel Guide writes that on 28th April, a little over one month after her death,
Elizabeth's body was conveyed in a grand procession down King Street, which today
is known as Whitehall, to Westminster Abbey for burial. Of her funeral procession contemporary
chronicler John Stowe wrote, “Westminster was surcharged with multitudes of all sorts of
people in their streets, houses, windows, leads and gutters that came out to see the obsequy.
And when they beheld her statue lying upon the coffin there was such a general sighing,
groaning and weeping as the like hath not been seen, or known in the memory of man.”
Westminster Abbey notes that the coffin covered in purple velvet was born on a chariot drawn by
four great horses with black trappers. The colored wooden funeral effigy lay on top of the coffin.
The effigy is described in an 1823 work, The Progresses and Public Processions of
Queen Elizabeth, purportedly drawn from original messages and scarce pamphlets. “The lively picture
of Her Majesty's whole body in her Parliament robes, with a crown on her head and a scepter
in her hand, lying on the corpse enshrined and lead.” The procession included gentlemen ushers
with white rods, and a canopy over the corpse born by six Knights, six Earl's assistants unto
the body, and on either side of the corpse, six bannerettes carried by twelve noblemen.
After a service Elizabeth was interred in Henry VII's Chapel in Westminster Abbey.
Despite the vast difference in time and situation it's not difficult to see the similarity between
that procession in 1603, and the one that we have been watching on television over the course of the
last week. Despite being separated by more than 400 years, both the Queen Elizabeths were direct
descendants of Henry VII, and thus, were just first cousins, though 14 times removed. Both ruled
for so long that the people felt as if they were a member of the family, that people remarked that
using the word King instead of Queen felt off. And both of their funerals were lined with mourners,
weeping as had not been seen or heard in the memory of man. Their respective reigns might
be judged by historians, but the mourning of their death…that belongs to the people.
I hope you enjoyed this episode of the History Guy. Check out our community on
the historyguideguild.locals.com, our webpage at thehistoryguy.com,
and our merchandise at teespring.com, or book a special message from the History Guy on Cameo.
And if you'd like more episodes of forgotten history, all you have to do is subscribe.