Was there a general crisis of government in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, 1589–1603? — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Was there a general crisis of government in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, 1589–1603? explained
Was there a general crisis of government in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, 1589–1603?
Read the full explanation
covers 4 specification points, including The significance of threats to national… and The extent of faction at court and the…. Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
The significance of threats to national security from Spain and Ireland.
England's security in Elizabeth's final years (1588–1603) was dominated by linked external dangers. Spain remained a persistent threat after 1588, launching further Armadas in 1596 and 1597, and forcing costly English interventions in France and the Netherlands. Ireland offered Spain a strategic back door: Tyrone's Rebellion (the Nine Years' War, 1594–1603) severely drained English finances and culminated in a Spanish landing at Kinsale in 1601. Significance lies in how these threats drove policy, demanding unprecedented taxation and military levies. Assess significance by weighing the duration, financial cost and the degree to which the combined Spanish and Irish threats endangered the Tudor state and shaped Elizabeth's final years.
The extent of faction at court and the succession issue.
In the final years of Elizabeth I’s reign (1589–1603), the extent of faction at court involved rival groupings competing for royal favour and patronage. The succession issue intensified this instability, as Elizabeth remained unmarried with no named heir, leading factions to align behind potential successors like James VI of Scotland. Key figures in this factional rivalry included Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and Robert Cecil. The extent of faction can be assessed by examining whether rivalry paralysed government decisions or merely reflected personal ambition. For example, Essex's rebellion in 1601 illustrates how factional competition and the denial of patronage could escalate into treason, highlighting the potential for a general crisis of government during this period.
The importance of growing conflicts with parliament and the session of 1601.
Elizabeth I's later parliaments became arenas of friction, and the 1601 session shows why. Monopolies granted by royal patent raised prices and angered merchants and consumers; MPs drafted a bill to abolish them. The Queen's Golden Speech conceded the grievances while preserving the prerogative, so conflict was contained rather than resolved. Historians weigh how far this was principled opposition or a bargaining ritual. Assess importance by comparing 1601 with earlier sessions: taxation for war, religion and free speech were recurring flashpoints. Explain how the session ended, what it reveals about Crown–Commons relations, and whether it marks a step towards parliamentary assertiveness.
The importance of harvest failures in the 1590s and the growth of social distress.
Harvest failures in the 1590s cut grain yields, driving up food prices while wages lagged. Real incomes fell, and the poor suffered most. Distress appeared as food riots, vagrancy and rising poor rates; local officials struggled to cope. The crisis exposed the limits of existing poor relief and helped prompt the 1598 and 1601 Poor Laws. Assess importance by comparing the 1590s with earlier dearth and by weighing short-term suffering against longer-term policy change. Explain the mechanisms linking harvest failure to prices, wages and distress, and judge how far the crisis reshaped attitudes to poverty and state responsibility.
Your focus
- Analyse how Spanish and Irish threats interacted to shape Elizabethan security policy between 1588 and 1603.
- Evaluate the significance of Tyrone's Rebellion and ongoing Spanish conflict using criteria such as financial cost and military strain.
- Support judgements with accurate, dated evidence from the period 1588–1603, such as the Spanish landing at Kinsale.
Show all 12 objectives
- Students can explain the extent of faction at court between 1589 and 1603, identifying key figures like Essex and Cecil.
- Students can analyse how the succession issue influenced political behaviour and factional rivalry.
- Students can evaluate whether factionalism and the succession issue constituted a general crisis of government in Elizabeth's final years.
- Explain the causes and course of the 1601 monopolies dispute.
- Analyse how the Golden Speech contained conflict while defending the prerogative.
- Judge the importance of 1601 by comparing it with earlier Elizabethan parliaments.
- Explain how harvest failures in the 1590s caused rising prices and social distress.
- Analyse responses to distress, including the 1598 and 1601 Poor Laws.
- Judge the importance of the 1590s crisis by comparison with earlier dearth and by its policy legacy.
Was there a general crisis of government in the last years of Elizabeth I’s reign, 1589–1603? exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains that Spain's threat persisted after 1588, with further Armadas (1596, 1597) and ongoing war in Europe forcing heavy military expenditure.
- Shows Ireland functioned as a strategic vulnerability, where Tyrone's Rebellion (1594–1603) threatened English control and invited Spanish intervention.
- Links the threats to concrete policy responses, such as the dispatch of large armies to Ireland under Essex and Mountjoy, and naval expeditions against Spain.
- Weighs relative significance by comparing the financial drain, such as the massive cost of the Irish war, and the domestic strain of raising troops and taxes.
- Uses specific evidence, such as the Spanish landing at Kinsale in 1601, to demonstrate how the threats from Spain and Ireland merged into a severe national crisis.
- Explains the extent of faction at court between 1589 and 1603, focusing on the intense rivalry between Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and Robert Cecil.
- Analyses how the succession issue exacerbated factional tensions, as Elizabeth's refusal to name an heir led courtiers to secretly negotiate with James VI of Scotland.
- Assesses the impact of faction on government efficiency, debating whether it caused a general crisis or was successfully managed by the Queen until 1601.
- Evaluates Essex's rebellion (1601) as a key example of factionalism escalating into open treason due to a loss of royal favour and patronage.
- Explains the monopoly grievance: royal patents restricted trade and raised prices, prompting Commons complaints in 1601.
- Analyses the Golden Speech as a concession of specific abuses that defended the royal prerogative in principle.
- Compares 1601 with earlier sessions over taxation, religion and freedom of speech to judge relative importance.
- Evaluates whether the outcome shows growing parliamentary assertiveness or managed negotiation that preserved Crown authority.
- Uses contemporary evidence such as parliamentary diaries or the speech itself to support the judgement.
- Explains the link from harvest failure to higher grain prices and falling real wages.
- Describes social distress: food riots, vagrancy, hunger and pressure on local poor relief.
- Assesses the response, including the 1598 and 1601 Poor Laws and local enforcement.
- Compares the 1590s with earlier dearth to judge how far this crisis was distinctive.
- Weighs short-term suffering against longer-term change in poor relief policy.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Anchor each claim about significance in a dated event, such as the 1601 Kinsale landing, so the argument is evidence-led.
- 💡Compare Spain and Ireland explicitly, deciding how their interaction magnified the threat to national security.
- 💡Focus strictly on the 1589–1603 period when evaluating the extent of faction, using Essex's 1601 rebellion as a concrete example of crisis.
- 💡Link the succession issue directly to factional behaviour, showing how uncertainty about the future drove courtiers to secure their positions.
- 💡Anchor each paragraph in a specific feature of the 1601 session, then link it to the wider theme of Crown–Parliament conflict.
- 💡Use the wording of the question: address both growing conflicts and the session of 1601 explicitly.
- 💡Reach a clear judgement about importance, supported by comparison with earlier sessions rather than assertion.
- 💡Use precise causal chains: harvest failure, then prices, then real wages, then distress.
- 💡Support claims about distress with named examples such as food riots or rising poor rates.
- 💡Make importance explicit by comparing the 1590s with earlier dearth and by weighing short-term and long-term effects.
Common Mistakes
- Treating the 1588 Armada as the end of the Spanish threat: correct by detailing the ongoing naval and land war until 1603.
- Assuming Ireland was a minor sideshow: correct by showing how Tyrone's Rebellion drained finances and culminated in a Spanish invasion force at Kinsale.
- Confusing the threat with its outcome: correct by assessing the danger as contemporaries perceived it, noting the severe strain on English resources.
- Error: Confusing Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester) with Robert Devereux (Earl of Essex). Correction: Dudley died in 1588; focus on Essex's dominance and rebellion in the 1589–1603 period.
- Error: Assuming the succession issue was openly debated in Parliament. Correction: Elizabeth strictly forbade discussion of the succession, forcing factions to manoeuvre secretly.
- Error: Concluding that faction completely destroyed Elizabethan government. Correction: While faction caused instability, Cecil's eventual dominance ensured a relatively smooth transition of power to James I.
- Treating 1601 as a constitutional revolution: correct by explaining that the prerogative survived and only particular monopolies were withdrawn.
- Assuming all MPs opposed the Crown: correct by noting that many sought redress of grievance while accepting royal authority.
- Narrating the session without weighing importance: correct by comparing it with earlier parliaments and reaching a supported judgement.
- Treating harvest failure as the sole cause of distress: correct by including wage stagnation, enclosure and population pressure.
- Assuming the Poor Laws solved poverty: correct by noting local variation and continuing hardship.
- Describing events without judging importance: correct by comparing with earlier crises and assessing consequences.