"Many wiser princes than my selfe you have had, but one onely excepted (whom in the dutie of a child I must regard, and to whom I must acknowledge my selfe farre shallow) I may truly say, none whose love and care can bee greater, or whose desire can be more to fathome deeper for preventions of danger to come, or resisting of dangers, if attempted towardes you, shall ever be found to exceed my self.".3

Hers was a quantum leap in realization that the ruler had obligations and responsibilities to the ruled. One cannot imagine such a speech by Henry VIII or Queen Mary. For them, the obligations flowed one way, and one way only, that was the obligation of the subjects to the monarch with no corresponding obligation of the monarch to the subject. From one point of view, Elizabeth’s speech and her actions during her reign show a ruler capable of having a personal attachment to those she ruled: put another way, with the state being synonymous with the extended family, that the parent had obligations and responsibilities to the child. Therefore, Elizabeth’s reign was a watershed in human history, and much of it was due to her unique personal intelligence and strength that enabled her to transcend much of her childhood history.

From an opposite point of view, Elizabeth was caught between conflicting domestic and international forces. She constantly vacillated and refused to give any firm directions to the country’s foreign or domestic policies, except to keep her own power and prerogatives as queen. She was parsimonious with the nation’s budget and abhorred spending for military purposes. The result of her indecisions was a rule of prudence dictated as much by circumstances as by the Queen’s wisdom and personal good judgment.

The Nobility’s Reason for Existence