Elizabeth had two goals as a ruler: to avoid marriage and to avoid war. She combined them by dangling the possibility of marriage in order to forge alliances, but the moment she committed to any single suitor she would have lost her power (Like Mary Queen of Scots.)
She not only dominated her country but also any man trying to conquer her. She stayed the center of attention and kept control. She made herself an object of worship and yet managed to rule through a period of peace and cultural fertility. So yes, stringing suitors along actually did prevent a lot of wars and armadas, despite your dismissive tone, lol.
Elizabeth didn't rule during a time of "peace and cultural fertility".
It was Elizabeth who sent the Reformation in England into its bloodiest phase, by cracking down on "popery" and forcibly converting everyone she could find as a matter of "internal security". (Elizabeth's measures were just as strict as those of her Catholic sister, but Mary is vilified by most English historians and Elizabeth isn't because...reasons.) This extended to Ireland, in which she started a Nine Years War (one of the most violent and destructive episodes in Irish history, dwarfing the Cromwell atrocities several decades later) against people who were actively trying to avoid fighting with the English crown. She sent military and financial assistance to rebels in several parts of Europe in the name of a war against the Iberian monarchy that was at least half her fault, and for good measure sent armies into Scotland and France to try regime change in those places too.
I don't know how you define "cultural fertility", but "peace" is not the word I would associate with Elizabeth's reign. Her reign featured more wars, bloodier wars, and more expensive wars than any of her near contemporaries as English rulers.
Also, the "Virgin Queen" thing
significantly destabilized the country because it made Elizabeth herself an excellent target. With no spouse or heir, killing her became one of the most potentially economical ways to send England spiraling into another succession crisis. The sheer number of attempted assassinations and coups during Elizabeth's reign is ridiculous, and while it's true that most of those were due to her militant anti-Catholicism one imagines that there wouldn't have been quite so many if she wasn't so vulnerable. She was extremely lucky to avoid assassination as it was; if she had not, the country might have had another civil war on its hands.
Elizabeth is retrospectively deified (especially in the UK) because of that luck, and because of her skill at propagandizing; no one was better suited to hijacking (and then creating) Little English nationalism than her. The atrocities in Ireland are usually ignored or forgiven because most English can't be bothered to learn Irish history, and those that do learn it generally blame everything that happened on the Irish. In fact, most of her foreign policy doesn't receive much attention; the aggressive moves in Europe are downplayed in favor of RESISTING THE VILE ARMADA TILBURY SPEECH HEART OF A KING RAH RAH YAH BOO SPAIN SUCKS. Her lunatic religious policy also tends to get a pass from people who automatically associate Catholicism with evil. Most English historical writing on Elizabeth is little better than hagiography, and insofar as anyone can find the courage to criticize her, the lack of a marriage is the main thing they harp on.
The supposed benefit of her lack of marriage, the boost to English diplomacy, was nugatory: no country committed to a pro-English foreign policy due to the
potential for a royal marriage, and Elizabeth never closed any of the deals. The flirtation with a Habsburg match early in her reign was wiped out by her anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic foreign policy, and the later proposed marriages to the dukes of Anjou wouldn't have had much diplomatic effect (due to the Wars of Religion) even if they'd gone through, which they didn't.
Retour en haut
