Was a peaceful transferal of power from Elizabeth I to James I in 1603 inevitable?

There was much fear and anxiety during the reign of Elizabeth I over what would happen when her reign came to an end. Perhaps surprisingly then, when Elizabeth died in 1603, power was peacefully transferred to James I of England. The peaceful crowning of James was certainly not guaranteed, and many factors contributed to this relatively unproblematic transferral of power. There were actions performed by both Elizabeth and James which ensured that the country remained stable and a peaceful transferal of power occurred. However, there were also factors suggesting that this peaceful transferal of power was not inevitable and was actually rather lucky.

Religious unrest solved?

During the Elizabethan period, religion was a central cause of unrest amongst the population. Catholic non-conformists posed a significant challenge, and many communities were slow to conform, with some older religious practices surviving ‘in some regions longer than others.’ Recusancy was also a significant problem at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, and church-going was something that the Crown struggled to enforce. This culminated in the Northern Rising of 1569, led by two prominent Catholics, the Earl of Northumberland and the Earl of Westmorland. Without the significant suppression of Catholic non-conformity that the Northern Rising resulted in, the transfer of power in 1603 may not have been so smooth, as unrest over religious discontent would have still been rife in the country.

There were also many disagreements between the Puritans and the Crown over religious practices; for example, the Vestments Controversy, where Puritans opposed the clothing that the Act of Uniformity demanded they wear. Another controversy surrounded prophesyings, meetings where Puritan ministers explained biblical texts. The Archbishop of Canterbury in 1575, Edmund Grindal, was insistent that these should be allowed to continue, as they were a pivotal part of the Puritan religion. However, Elizabeth disapproved of them and demanded that they were shut down. This argument culminated in the removal of Grindal as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1577, and prophesyings were shut down by his successor, John Whitgift. This strong reaction from the Queen gave a clear message to the Puritans that they had no choice but to conform to the Religious Settlement, as ‘the Queen was not going to permit further reformation.’

All thanks to Elizabeth?

Elizabeth never married, had a child who would succeed her, or named an heir to the throne. This resulted in an uncertain situation surrounding her succession, often referred to as the ‘Succession Crisis’. Whilst ‘James steadily emerged as her most likely successor’ ‘there had been in play several Protestant candidates with a reasonable claim to the succession.’ Different groups wanted different people to succeed her, with figures such as Mary, Queen of Scots and Lady Catherine Grey being other contenders for the throne. Elizabeth’s refusal to name an heir, even on her deathbed, created significant anxiety and uncertainty surrounding her succession.

Furthermore, Elizabeth’s ‘unwillingness to name James her legitimate heir in parliament’ made his claim to the throne disputable. The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, shortly after James’ accession, highlights that unrest was still rife in the country when James became King of England. However, government response to the Gunpowder Plot ‘was efficient and calculated’, taking a measured approach with a ‘surprising lack of subsequent persecution.’ James ‘was politically astute enough to realise that the government’s response should avoid provoking the entire Catholic community’, this avoided conflicts between the Crown and the English Catholic community, and between England and foreign Catholic countries.

Clever tactics from James I?

James had set out from the beginning of his reign his aims of continuity and peace within the country. When he called the Hampton Court Conference, James made sure keep the social elite on side. This is illustrated in his response to the Puritan demand for the removal of bishops being ‘no bishop, no king.’ Furthermore, he used the Hampton Court Conference to respond to the Millennial Petition of 1603, in which Puritans had set out their demands for religious change. The Puritans had ‘pinned immense hopes on James’, partly due to the fact that Scotland, under King James, had gone further with their reformation than England. By being clear about his aims for continuity at the Hampton Court Conference, James quickly established his control over religion and gave a message to the Puritans that he would promote the continuity of existing religious practices. 

Inevitable peaceful transferal of power?

‘Unquestionably, the translation of power on 24th March, the day of Elizabeth’s death, went more smoothly in London than had been anticipated.’ This was due to a combination of factors, including Elizabeth having left the country in a relatively stable position by efficiently dealing with opposition to the Religious Settlement. However, there were many factors that could have prevented this. Elizabeth I’s unwillingness to confirm James as her heir made his succession uncertain and insecure. Unrest was also still rife, as shown by the Gunpowder Plot attempt on James’ life in 1605. However, James’ reaction to this unease and his actions when he assumed the English throne-promptly asserting his intentions surrounding the continuity of religious practices-ensured stability within the country. All of these factors contributed to a ‘powerful underlying internal stability’, allowing for a peaceful transferral of power in 1603.     

Bibliography

Croft, Pauline, King James (London: Red Globe Press, 2002)

Duffy, Eamon, The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580 (New Haven, London: Yale University press, 2005)

Jones, Norman, The Birth of the Elizabethan Age: England in the 1560s (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)

Marshall, Peter, Reformation England 1480-1642 (Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2022)

The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism, ed. by John Coffey and Paul Lim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)

Doran, Susan, ‘1603: a jagged succession’, Historical Research, 93.261 (2020), pp. 443-465, doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/hisres/htaa019

Fincham, Kenneth, ‘Ramifications of the Hampton Court Conference in the Dioceses 1603-1609’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 36 (1985), pp. 208-227, doi:10.1017/S0022046900038720

Okines, A.W.R.E, ‘Why Was There So Little Government Reaction to Gunpowder Plot?’, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 55.2 (2004), pp. 275-292, doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046904009911