English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

9 answers

Elizabeth Tudor achieved something that her forefathers had been fighting for and failing at for almost two centuries. Under her management she consolidated the political and military authority of the Crown and re-established England as a first rate power in western Europe. That was something that hadn't been seen since the reign of Edward III and had fallen apart after the death of his son Edward, the Black Prince. Of course her grandfather and father both had made substantial efforts in this direction, but because of the Spanish Crown's New World Empire and their ascendancy on the Atlantic, their efforts had never been fully realized. When the English finally brought Phillip of Spain's ambtions to an end, that signaled that England had returned as a power. Coupled with the new efforts to create the first overseas empire, this was an expression of the English assertiveness that would build the most extended empire the world has ever seen.

Beyond these power considerations though, look at the era Elizabeth presided over. In her reign the true English renaissance occurred. The real English reformation finally occurred and the island was firmly ensconsed in the Protestant camp once and for all. Writers such as Marlow and Shakespeare were producing the first great works of the culture, science and medicine was in rapid expansion and English ceased to be some tribal dialect but the great versatile and assimilative language it is today.

In short, her reign was the great turning point of early modern English history. That is something any monarch could be proud of and remembered as "the Great" for (remember though, she is not remembered officially as Elizabeth the Great. That's an effort being pushed by feminist historical revisionists. Not saying it's not a good idea. It's just not "official") What accentuates all this however is Elizabeth did this all not only as a woman, but a "bastard" heir as well, both of which were horribly politically de-stabilizing. Queens had never been given authority before or since like Elizabeth had (Mary II was co-regent, Anne was very closely controlled by parliament, and Victoria and Elizabeth II was/is a figurehead). Queens' first job were to produce heirs and that was an extremely dangerous occupation. In a system where heriditary succesion was so important, could you imagine what would happen if the ruling Queen and the heir died in the process of childbirth? That was why sucessor Queens had always been pushed into marrying and making a king of someone. Elizabeth got past all of these obstacles and established an extremely stable regime that was far longer than any other English monarch with the exception of the two great figurehead queens of the modern era. That added to the list of her accomplishments make her extremely successful and talented in my eyes.

2006-08-24 18:29:10 · answer #1 · answered by Johnny Canuck 4 · 0 0

I suppose that depends on how you define success.
She is certainly reveered by the people of Britain, and was ranked #7 in a list of 100 Greatest Britons conducted by the BBC, which was higher than any other monarch on the list. The History Channel did a documentary on the 12 greatest monarchs of Britain, and Elizabeth was ranked #1. She didn't have any really great military achievements, but did help to put England back on its feet after inheriting the throne from Mary I with great debt. She also helped prevent English religious civil war.

2006-08-24 20:33:32 · answer #2 · answered by c_dawg_123 2 · 0 0

Definitely, she changed England, for ever, with creating a Navy and keeping England a Protestant Country. Her only failure, was not having an heir, so it let the Stuarts of Scotland, take over the English throne.
She had Mary Queen of Scots beheaded, but not before Mary had an heir, and he was the one, that united the crowns of England and Scotland. Quite a big failure, ending the Tudor Reign for ever.

2006-08-24 20:26:33 · answer #3 · answered by johnb693 7 · 0 0

I think so. Remember, her father, Henry VIII, had pi**ed off the rest of Europe by divorcing Catherine, declaring their daughter Mary a bastard, and creating the Church of England. Most of Europe was still Catholic, like Catherine, and she was part of the Spanish royal family. When Mary took over, and was overthrown by Elizabeth, that did it--that's why the Spanish Armada came after her. By beating them, she weakened Spain to the point that they were no longer a threat to England. I'd call that a success.

2006-08-25 08:08:25 · answer #4 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0 0

She was fantastically succesful as a Monarch, it was under her reign that Enland really started to expand across the world.It was her subjects that first attempted to colonise what we know now as the USA and indeed Virginia is named after her. Her nation conquered the seas and really sewed the seeds of the British Empire.
She held a Protestant throne in a predominately Catholic Europe.
But, she was unlucky in love

2006-08-24 20:33:04 · answer #5 · answered by Bohemian 4 · 0 0

Considering the international Language is English, not Spanish, French, or Arabic, I have to say that her rule turned the tides of history pretty well.

2006-08-25 03:35:23 · answer #6 · answered by The Garden of Fragile Egos 3 · 0 0

Against the Spanish, certainly. Against the English, probably. Against the Catholics, not so much.

Xan Shui,
Philosophic Philanthropist, Honest Man

2006-08-24 20:26:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

She is not called Elisabeth the Great for nothing.

2006-08-24 21:10:38 · answer #8 · answered by Mac 3 · 0 0

Lucky in war, unlucky in love.

write your own book, I've got MINE!

2006-08-24 20:27:28 · answer #9 · answered by Munya Says: DUH! 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers