The Succession Issue and Faction (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
The Succession Issue and Faction
Introduction: The succession problem
Elizabeth I's failure to marry and produce children created a major political problem for her government, particularly in the later years of her reign. Throughout her rule, she consistently refused to name her successor, leaving the matter uncertain and causing anxiety among her councillors and the political elite. This uncertainty became increasingly problematic as the queen aged in the 1590s and early 1600s.
The succession question was not merely a matter of royal preference. Without a clear heir, England faced potential civil war, foreign intervention, or competing claims that could tear the nation apart. Every major European power watched England's succession crisis with interest, ready to exploit any weakness.
Although there were rumours that Elizabeth nominated James VI of Scotland on her deathbed in 1603, the reality was that the final decision about who would inherit the throne rested with the Privy Council, not the dying queen. This situation meant that powerful faction leaders at court had a strong incentive to manoeuvre themselves into positions of influence with potential successors, creating political intrigue and instability.
The succession issue became intertwined with factional politics at Elizabeth's court, as rival groups sought to secure their own political futures by building relationships with the leading candidates for the throne.
The candidates for the throne
James VI of Scotland: The leading contender
James VI emerged as the most likely successor, but his path to the English throne was not straightforward. He possessed several significant advantages:
- He was Protestant, which made him the preferred candidate for England's Protestant political elite who wanted to protect their religious settlement
- He was an experienced ruler who had governed Scotland since childhood
- As the great-great-grandson of Henry VII through Margaret Tudor (Henry VIII's elder sister), he had a strong hereditary claim
However, James also faced considerable barriers to his inheritance:
Legal Obstacles to James's Succession
The 1544 Act of Succession had given Henry VIII the power to determine the line of succession through his will. Henry's will had named his own children (Edward, Mary and Elizabeth) first, then the descendants of his younger sister Mary Tudor through Frances Grey and Eleanor Clifford.
Crucially, the will demoted the Stuart line descended from Margaret Tudor, Henry's elder sister. This meant that legally, James VI's claim was questionable and could be challenged in court.
Political problems:
- His mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, had been executed for treason in 1587, which could taint his claim
- He was technically a foreign monarch and a Scot, which might create resistance among the English
- Some questioned whether he could legally inherit given these circumstances
James's supporters developed arguments to overcome these obstacles. They claimed that Henry VIII's will was invalid because it had been authenticated using the dry stamp (a mechanical stamp of the king's signature) rather than being signed personally by Henry. This legal technicality became important in legitimising James's eventual succession.
Arbella Stuart: The English alternative
Arbella Stuart was another descendant of Margaret Tudor and therefore had a claim similar to James VI's. She possessed one significant advantage over her cousin James: she had been brought up in England and was culturally English rather than Scottish. This might have made her more acceptable to English nobles and political leaders.
However, the Cecils (the dominant faction at court) appear to have favoured James over Arbella. She was ultimately passed over, possibly because she was suspected of having Catholic sympathies. In an era when religious allegiance was crucial to political loyalty, any hint of Catholicism would have damaged her prospects with the Protestant political establishment.
Edward Seymour (Lord Beauchamp of Hache): The illegitimate claim
Edward Seymour was descended from Catherine Grey, daughter of Frances Grey, who was herself descended from Henry VIII's younger sister Mary Tudor. According to Henry VIII's will, this line should have taken precedence over the Stuart descendants of Margaret Tudor.
However, Seymour's claim was fatally undermined by questions about his legitimacy:
- His mother, Catherine Grey, had married without Elizabeth I's permission
- This marriage had subsequently been annulled, making Seymour technically illegitimate
- Without legitimate birth, his claim to the throne was legally invalid
Political Calculations Behind the Succession
There were also political reasons why the Cecils may not have supported Seymour:
- The accession of an adult male member of the English nobility might have created rival factions at court
- Such a succession could have provoked jealousy among other noble families
- The Cecils preferred a candidate they could control and who would depend on their support
This demonstrates how succession decisions were driven by political calculation as much as legal legitimacy.
Infanta Isabella: The Spanish candidate
The Infanta Isabella, daughter of Philip II of Spain, represented the most unlikely candidate. Her claim to the English throne was extremely distant, traced through John of Gaunt (son of Edward III) and required going back many generations.
Her candidacy had very limited support:
- Her only real supporters were Jesuit priests operating in England
- Moderate English Catholics did not support her claim, despite her Catholicism
- These moderate Catholics calculated that they would receive better treatment and more religious toleration by accepting a Protestant monarch like James VI than by supporting a foreign Catholic invasion
- The prospect of a Spanish succession was politically impossible given England's recent conflicts with Spain
Factional manoeuvring over the succession
Essex's treasonous correspondence
The Earl of Essex and his faction engaged in secret and potentially treasonous negotiations with James VI. These communications revealed the desperate measures faction leaders were willing to take to secure their political futures.
Historical Example: The Mountjoy Plot (1599-1600)
Lord Mountjoy, Essex's ally who had replaced him as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, wrote to James VI in 1599. Mountjoy's letter suggested an extraordinary plan:
The Proposal:
- James should raise troops in Scotland and demand that Elizabeth name him as her heir
- Essex in England and Mountjoy in Ireland would support this military pressure
- This would force Elizabeth to acknowledge James as her successor
Why This Was Treasonous: Even entering into correspondence with a foreign monarch was technically treason, but advising military action against the English crown was far worse. This plot represented a direct threat to Elizabeth's sovereignty.
Essex's accusations (December 1600):
- After his own disgrace, Essex wrote to James complaining about the "reigning faction" (meaning the Cecils)
- He accused the Cecil faction of supporting the Infanta Isabella rather than James
- This was an attempt to turn James against his rivals and secure his own political rehabilitation
- Essex was trying to position himself as James's true supporter in England
Fortunately for Elizabeth, James VI responded cautiously to these dangerous overtures. He refused to commit himself to Mountjoy's military plan and instead sent ambassadors to England. When these ambassadors arrived in London, they discovered that Essex had been executed for treason in 1601, and they began negotiations with Robert Cecil instead.
Cecil's calculated strategy
Despite Essex's accusations, Robert Cecil was actually the succession candidate's most important supporter. Between 1600 and 1603, Cecil conducted his own secret correspondence with James VI, demonstrating the lengths to which faction leaders went to secure their positions.
Cecil faced a delicate balancing act:
- He could not openly support James without risking Elizabeth's anger, as she had forbidden discussion of the succession
- Yet he needed to ensure James's trust and dependence on him for after Elizabeth's death
- Secret correspondence was equally dangerous if discovered, as it constituted treason
Cecil's tactics to dominate James's favour:
After Essex's execution in 1601, Cecil's main objective was to ensure that James VI was completely reliant on him and viewed other courtiers as untrustworthy. He pursued this through:
- Alliance with Henry Howard: Cecil worked closely with Henry Howard, who wrote most of the letters to James on Cecil's behalf
- Undermining rivals: Cecil ensured that James received negative impressions of other potential supporters, particularly the queen's favourites Walter Raleigh and Henry Brooke (Lord Cobham)
- Creating dependence: Through careful manipulation, Cecil positioned himself as the only reliable contact James had at the English court
- Controlling information: As the dominant figure at court, Cecil could control what information reached James and how it was presented
This strategy proved successful. By the time of Elizabeth's death in 1603, James VI trusted Cecil and was prepared to rely on him as his chief minister in England.
The peaceful succession of 1603
In March 1603, Elizabeth I entered her final illness. Historical accounts differ about whether she finally agreed that James should inherit the throne. Some sources suggest she nominated James on her deathbed, but these accounts are contradictory and unreliable.
What truly mattered was not Elizabeth's final wishes but the political reality that Cecil had carefully constructed:
- James VI, a foreigner with a legally disputed claim, was able to inherit the English throne peacefully
- This peaceful succession was achieved through the manoeuvring of court factions, particularly the Cecil faction
- The transition demonstrated that political power now came from connection to the court rather than military strength
- No army was raised, no battle fought - the succession was determined by political negotiation and faction management
The Significance of a Peaceful Succession
The peaceful succession of 1603 stood in stark contrast to previous disputed successions in English history, particularly the accession of Henry VII in 1485, which had been won on the battlefield at Bosworth. This transformation demonstrated a fundamental shift in how political power operated in England - from military might to court influence.
To what extent did court faction lead to a crisis of government?
This question has been debated by historians, with evidence supporting both interpretations.
Arguments that faction created a crisis
Several factors suggest that factional politics did create genuine political instability in the 1590s and early 1600s:
Volatile atmosphere at court:
- Faction-fighting created an unsettled and unstable political environment
- This level of tension had not been seen earlier in Elizabeth's reign
- The combination of an ageing queen, succession uncertainty, and aggressive faction leaders created a dangerous situation
- These tensions culminated in Essex's revolt in February 1601, the most serious challenge to Elizabeth's authority
Elizabeth's mismanagement:
- The queen's refusal to make decisions about key appointments actually increased faction-fighting rather than reducing it
- She was prepared to tolerate Essex's angry outbursts and sulking because he flattered and amused her
- This indulgence encouraged his increasingly reckless behaviour
The Monopoly of Patronage
Elizabeth allowed patronage to come under the control of just one group - the Cecil faction. This created a division between the 'haves' (those with access to patronage) and the 'have nots' (those excluded).
Resentment of the Cecil faction's monopoly was widespread, not limited to Essex and his followers. This resentment could have developed into something more dangerous if not carefully managed.
The seriousness of Essex's rebellion:
- Essex planned a palace coup to capture the court and the queen
- His ultimate goal was to remove Elizabeth herself - the most serious form of rebellion possible
- He had cultivated popular support in London and could have succeeded if he had maintained the element of surprise
- His original plan to target Whitehall Palace with a small armed force was potentially viable
- In this sense, faction did create political instability and provoked a noble revolt
Arguments that faction did not create a crisis
However, there are strong reasons to argue that the impact of faction has been overstated:
The queen's ultimate control:
- Both Essex and the Cecils were reliant on Elizabeth for favour and patronage
- Essex was more dependent on royal favour than Cecil
- Elizabeth could have withdrawn her support at any time, as she did with Essex
- Without the queen's favour, faction leaders lost the source of their power - office and position at court
Historical Example: The Transformation of Noble Power
The nobility were now reliant on the court for power and influence, not on traditional feudal and military strength. Their military roles had been almost entirely undermined.
Evidence of This Transformation:
- Essex and his followers were completely reliant on their small armed followings in London in 1601
- They lacked the ability to raise troops in the localities as medieval nobles had done
- The muster of troops was under Elizabeth's control through the Lord Lieutenant system, and she chose these men carefully
This represented a fundamental shift from medieval power structures where nobles commanded large private armies.
The peaceful succession proves stability:
- James VI's succession in 1603 was established peacefully through court-based negotiation
- There was no return to the situation of 1485 when Henry VII won the throne on the battlefield with military support from medieval nobility
- The succession was achieved through diplomacy (albeit potentially treasonous), not warfare
- This demonstrates that faction operated within a framework ultimately controlled by the monarch
Faction as a contained phenomenon:
- Although resentment of the Cecils was widespread, it lacked coordination
- Apart from Essex's rebellion, opposition remained as grumbling rather than action
- Essex's revolt was relatively easily suppressed, showing that factional discontent did not translate into effective military opposition
Conclusion: The Limits of Factional Power
The existence of faction did not create a succession crisis because the nobility were ultimately reliant on Elizabeth, not their military strength, for their power. The political system had fundamentally changed since the medieval period. Power now flowed from the court and from royal patronage, not from the ability to raise feudal armies. This meant that even serious factional disputes could be contained within the political system rather than exploding into civil war.
While faction created tensions and instability, particularly around Essex's revolt, it operated within limits set by the monarchy's control of patronage and military power. The peaceful succession of 1603 demonstrated that court-based faction, for all its dangers, represented a less destabilising form of political competition than the military conflicts that had characterised earlier succession disputes.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Elizabeth's refusal to name a successor created political uncertainty that encouraged factional manoeuvring, as courtiers sought to secure their futures by building relationships with potential heirs.
-
James VI of Scotland emerged as the leading candidate despite legal barriers (Henry VIII's will) and political problems (foreign king, mother executed for treason), primarily because he was Protestant and had strong hereditary claims.
-
Both rival factions (Essex and Cecil) engaged in secret, potentially treasonous correspondence with James VI, demonstrating the desperate measures faction leaders took to maintain power after Elizabeth's death.
-
Robert Cecil's careful strategy of undermining rivals and making James dependent on him ensured the peaceful succession in 1603, showing how court-based political skill had replaced military power.
-
The debate over whether faction caused a crisis reveals important changes in Tudor government: while faction created instability (especially Essex's revolt), the nobility's dependence on court patronage rather than military strength meant political disputes could be contained and the succession achieved peacefully.