Characteristics Of Queen Elizabeth A Machiavellian Ruler

The Poor Law The Poor Law was a system established since the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, about two hundred years before the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834. In this system the able-bodied poor should be set to work, whilst the others had to be provided for by their parish of birth. By 1795 when the whole system was under strain, an attempted solution was the Speenhamland system also know as the allowance system that was devised in 1795.

Niccolò Machiavelli suggested in The Prince that a ruler should behave as both a fox and a lion, being both loved and feared. There are clever rulers who were strategic, courageous rulers who were effective, and successful rulers who possessed both qualities. Elizabeth I of England and Henery IV of France were two great rulers from Europe that were able to personify Machiavelli 's advice.

When Mary was the monarch of Scotland, the Calvinist nobles deposed of her, and she fled to England for safety (Spielvogel 408). Since she was the daughter of Henry VIII’s sister, Mary held a legitimate claim to the throne after Elizabeth. In fact, many Catholics saw Henry’s second marriage to Anne Boleyn as improper, making Mary the more fitting queen for England (Sifakis 1). Seeing opportunity in this woman who “had no intention of altering her faith,” the Catholics plotted to place her on the English throne (Black 68). They took part in many failed assassination plots on Elizabeth, one of them being the Babington Plot of 1586. This nefarious plan held Mary’s controversial involvement, leading to her trial, conviction, and execution (Sifakis 2). With a resolve “to end the threats to her regime,” Elizabeth ended her cousin’s life through a beheading (Spielvogel 408). Both Elizabeth’s decision to get rid of Mary and the construction of religious compromise were Machiavellian because of her pragmatic way of thinking to ensure a successful reign.

Historians have dedicated more biographies to Elizabeth I than any other of the Tudor monarchs. Elizabeth was the only daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Books relating to aspects of Queen Elizabeth I 's life currently run into the hundreds. The time that a certain biography was written is an important factor to bear in mind when reading about this historical figure. Despite that historical facts are unchanging, the historian 's perspectives and interpretations, as well as their styles of reconstructing history often, change with time. This paper analyzes the interpretation of the events that surrounded the confinement of Elizabeth I in the Tower of London by her predecessor Mary I over religious differences.

Machiavelli’s interpretation of human nature was greatly shaped by his belief in God. In his writings, Machiavelli conceives that humans were given free will by God, and the choices made with such freedom established the innate flaws in humans. Based on that, he attributes the successes and failure of princes to their intrinsic weaknesses, and directs his writing towards those faults. His works are rooted in how personal attributes tend to affect the decisions one makes and focuses on the singular commanding force of power. Fixating on how the prince needs to draw people’s support, Machiavelli emphasizes the importance of doing what is best for the greater good. He proposed that working toward a selfish goal, instead of striving towards a better state, should warrant punishment. Machiavelli is a practical person and always thought of pragmatic ways to approach situations, applying to his notions regarding politics and

Machiavelli writes the ‘Prince’ while away in exile which by most people, is interpreted as his manual or guide on how to rule. It is quite clear that he demonstrates political interest and advocacy in his work through the many stories of past rulers he shares as examples of what to do and what not to do. An example of a ruler who came from a lower position, meaning no riches or status, was Agathocles (son of a potter, who became the King of Syracuse) (Machiavelli [1532] 2006) which is similar to the status of the man Plato speaks of, Socrates. However, Machiavelli speaks for power politics and the importance of the ruler being in total control since “a wise prince should establish himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others” ([1532]

In order to successfully hold power, Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli believed that a ruler during the time of enlightened absolutism in Europe had to possess qualities of both a “lion” and a “fox”. By this, Machiavelli means that in order to succeed, rulers had to be aggressive and firm like a lion, while also sly and sneaky like a fox. These traits can be seen in two different European rulers during this time period, Elizabeth I of England and Catherine the Great of Russia, who both follow Machiavelli’s principles successfully.

Prior to the Poor Law Amendment Act there was the Elizabethan Poor Law 1601 which was more generous towards the poor. It was becoming impossible for the government to sustain this law due to the growing costs. Statistics show that in 1802 the expenditure on poor relief was costing the government £4,078,000, this figure continued to

While Machiavelli was a Catholic nobleman and Prince a singer and a Jehovah’s Witness(member of a Christian-based religious movement), they were alike in that they explored realms beyond their respective religions. Machiavelli pioneered the study of political science, something quite unheard-of in a time when monarchical power was believed to be a divine right. Prince, while a devout Christian, also spent time studying Afrocentric interpretations of history and some Eastern spiritual ideas.(Hiatt) In addition, Prince’s attitude towards fate bears striking similarity with Machiavelli’s theory of fate. The Prince explains that “fortune is the ruler of half our actions, but that she allows the other half or thereabouts to be governed by us.”(104) According to Machiavelli, there are some things in life that are within man’s control and some things beyond; which is well in accord with Prince’s beliefs. When asked whether he would marry again, Prince said, “that’s another thing that’s up to God. It’s all magnetism anyway- something would pull me into its gravity, and I wouldn’t be able to get out from

The Poor Law was introduced because it was too much money to pay to look after the poor, so in hopes to take the poor off the streets and to stop money going to the poor the government introduced the law in 1834. The law was also put in place to embolden the poor to get back into work and support themselves, There was a law before 1834 called the "Old Poor Law" this was found to be insufficient because there was nothing in place to help the poor because even though they set up workhouses for the poor they didn't offer accommodation for the poor. There was an act passed in 1795 called "The Speenhamland System" which allowed employers to pay their workers exceptionally low wages during these years the middle and the upper classes were getting more angry because they were the ones paying for the poor who would avoid not going to or do any work.

The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is

A family of monarchy which tortured Machiavelli for months causing him great suffrage and sorrow. He writes to Lorenzo “May I trust, therefore, that Your Highness will accept this little gift in the spirit in which it is offered: and if Your Highness will deign to peruse it, you will recognize in it my ardent desire that you may attain to that grandeur which fortune and your own merits presage for you.” This enough is confusing because if this is the same principality that caused so much suffering why dedicate a book to let their reign continue into longevity? As to add to this confusion, Machiavelli explains how a prince should use cruelty and violence correctly against the people. To use cruelty and punishment all at once so that the people learn to respect you by fear. He includes that if you had a choice on either being loved or feared, be feared for love can change as quick as it came. Fear of punishment, people would avoid and be subservient. He also goes on to put out that a prince must be cunning like a fox yet strong and fearsome like a lion. To use Realpolitik, morality and ideology left out for the world is not these things as you should not be as well. Furthermore, Machiavelli explains what must happen when a new ruler overtakes a new city and the people in it. “And whoever becomes the ruler of a free city and does not destroy it, can expect to be destroyed by it,

During the early nineteenth century poverty was major issue, the Poor Law passed earlier in the Tudor period put responsibility on local parishes to pay tax to help the poor. However, over the years the financial strain on parishes became too much and in 1834 The Poor Amendment Act was passed. This was to help reduce the cost of looking after the poor and it was to stop the payment of tax unless you had special circumstances. If the poor wanted help they had to go in to workhouses and work, in exchange for clothes, food, free healthcare and a few hours of schooling for children. The poor had no choice but to go in there for help. On one hand The Poor Amendment Act 1834 was good as it gave the poor free food, shelter, healthcare and education for their children. However, the conditions in the work houses were made so awful that people would avoid going in there unless they were really desperate. The diet was bad, families were spilt up and the people in there had to wear uniform.

"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince

Sixteenth century England experienced a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the Age of Queens. The decisive power of the country was placed in women’s hands and their reigns were watched with a reasonable doubt. There is contrast of rule in terms of reigns between Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth of England, both of whom were engaged in a protracted struggle for the English throne. Beside the legitimacy of their claims, there are more significant considerations which predestined them to either increase or lose their power. The rule and attitudes of the two monarchs bore significant influence upon the times in which they lived, including social, political and legal precedents which were being challenged and in some cases reversed. The fact that both Queens encountered situations of striking similarity, serves as a suitable example for a remarkable comparison, helping to analyze the lives of the two Queens and how their lives diverged as a result of such encounters and their actions thereafter. They were both Queens, struggling for the throne, they were women as well as rivals; they both had affairs with married men, however, one managed a narrow escape from the disgraceful situation, while the other failed to do so. Mary grew to hate Anne Boleyn, mother of Elizabeth, because he took the position of her mother Catharine as Queen of England. Before Elizabeth came to the scene, Mary was loved and was the only child of King Henry VIII of