To what extent did royal authority decline in the years 1589 to 1603? In the years 1589 to 1603, royal authority declined irrefutably, with the belief of much of the general public being that Elizabeth's "heart and stomach of a king" were indeed succumbing to the "body of a king". 'a weak and feeble woman'. » Age had tarnished the "Gloriana", and in some areas this once authoritarian majesty seemed on the brink of collapse - particularly with regard to drastic social unrest, caused by the poor harvests of 1597 and 1598, and inflation massive and uncontrolled. However, this royal authority had by no means been eradicated and opposition was still dealt with quickly – if not with more force than before, given Elizabeth's increasing irascibility – as evidenced by her response " in gold” in the Parliament of 1601 and the loyalty of Parliament. authorities to move the Essex Rebellion. Thus, although it has largely declined during its long forty-five years as monarch, the preservation of the prerogative (despite concessions on monopolies – a pragmatic response which has not necessarily shaken it) and its capacity to stopping all dissent (like the Wentworth) proved that royal power remained the highest authority in the country. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay Undeniably, the deaths of several of her key ministers dealt a crippling blow to her royal authority – a blow she did not expect. is never really recovered, with the weaker replacements for Cecil junior and the disastrous Essex – as these directors were crucial in enforcing his will. With the death of Mildmay in 1589 and that of Hatton in 1591, Elizabeth lost not only the skillful implementers of her policies, but also the puppeteers who had pulled the strings of the Commons. Burghley's illness meant he was confined to a lesser role in the 1590s, while Leicester had died earlier in 1588: into this political vacuum emerged the short-tempered Essex and Robert Cecil, who had been groomed for the role of his father. Robert, Secretary of State from 1596, was a stickler for politics and may have succeeded in manipulating Parliament with the right support, but as AGR Smith describes his colleagues were "mediocrities", so he was crippled in a way the combined might of Knollys, Mildmay and Hatton had never been. This helped to undermine Elizabeth's royal authority, as without the ability to control MPs – other than the much-used prerogative – she had a lesser role in implementing legislation. Of course, royal approval still remained the final step, but there no longer existed sufficiently powerful servants through whom his authority could manipulate the President and generally direct the course of the sessions. Moreover, the arrival of Robert and Essex to the Privy Council upset the balance of a once efficient and coherent mechanism, factionalism having emerged as never before. Although this potentially represented a major problem for Elizabeth's authority – since the Council was often the means by which her effective policies could be developed and, in some cases, presented to Parliament – ​​she managed to largely limit her destructive character, showing one of the few glimmers of powerful royal authority that remained at this later stage. With the reward of patronage, she was able to curb Essex's greedy ambition, offering key positions such as Master of the Court of Wards to Cecil in 1599, and essentially isolatingany real power of Essex and his faction (modifying to some extent the bad judgment which had brought him into his inner circle.) The arrival of these new ministers undoubtedly represents a weakening of Elizabeth's royal authority, on the part of Cecil through the immense political vacuum he was striving to fill, and on the part of Essex because of his imprudence and recklessness. introduction to divide factionalism. However, Robert Cecil was still a competent administrator and capable of carrying out Elizabeth's will, and his careful management of the Essex joker allowed him to retain authority over her Council. However, his limitation of patronage in Leicester backfired, as it was one of the many factors that led to his rebellion of 1601. His march through London was the final attempt to challenge royal authority – to usurp the queen – but the fact that she failed gives credence to the remains of her authority; As tarnished as it was, in moments of crisis it still seemed to shine. It could be said that Elizabeth no longer possessed the authority to control her ministers, which was true to a certain extent: her age had altered her temperament and made her much more lenient towards her favorites. Perhaps if Essex had sat next to a young Elizabeth, her constant disobedience would have quickly caused her to fall from her ranks rather than allowing her to explode into rebellion. That aside, the Essex Rebellion did not truly challenge royal authority. Williams described it as "the visible edge of greater discontent", but although there was severe discontent regarding socio-economic conditions, Essex's attempt was in no way connected with it; it was the last desperate roll of the dice of an unstable man on the brink of destruction. The fact that it only lasted twelve hours proves how little of a challenge it was. Furthermore, it was far less of a demonstration than the Northern Rebellion of 1569, and so perhaps showed that not only had Elizabeth's royal authority resurfaced in the face of crisis, but also that the true core of this had not been reduced. (Of course, the alternative argument is that Elizabeth would not have survived a more rational rebellion in her later years.) Nevertheless, the enduring loyalty of the masses, and especially of the London authorities, ensured that her royal authority remains strong in the face of opposition. and had therefore not declined beyond redemption. The real test for royal authority, however, was the growing socio-economic crisis that afflicted the final years of his reign. The poor harvests of 1597 and 1598, the resulting 80 percent rise in the price of corn, an estimated mortality rate of around 6 percent, and the lowest real wages since before the Black Death made this situation the the most dangerous threat to royal authority. After all, it was a socio-economic rebellion (that of Kett in 1549) which helped ensure the fall of Somerset. The fact that Elizabeth's regime was able to weather this storm is not sufficient evidence to say that her royal authority was strong, nor that it actually persisted – more than it lasted. Riots broke out in London, Oxfordshire and Norfolk, but fortunately for Elizabeth they posed no popular threat; similarly, the Oxfordshire “Rising” only brought together four people. Although this did not in itself constitute a threat (although, given the brutal consequences for the "rebels", one might think that it had almost overthrown the Tudors), it did reveal the potential for a catastrophic crisis and a vast social upheaval; the “widest range of discontent” noted by Williams. It's necessary.