The Role of Walsingham in the Misnomered Babington Plot of 1586 THE ROLE OF WALSINGHAM IN THE MISNOMERED BABINGTON PLOT OF 1586 By Jacquelyn Lee Borgeson The reign of Queen Elizabeth I was as eventful as it was lengthy. Of the many intriguing conspiracies of that day, the Babington Plot remains the most controversial. It was not just another attempt by Catholic sympathizers to assassinate Elizabeth and place Mary, Queen of Scots, on the English throne. This plot was unique due to its origins rather than its nature. Contrary to popular belief, it was Principal Secretary Sir Francis Walsingham, not Anthony Babington, who instigated this scheme, nurtured it to maturity, and then cleverly concealed his involvement. Exactly how and perhaps why Walsingham came to play such an enormous role remains a great debate today. A presentation of this plot from its beginning to its discovery may show the extent of Walsingham's entanglement. The English situation in 1585, one year before even the first inkling of the Babington Plot, was precarious.

The succession of anti-Elizabeth plots like the Throckmorton and Norfolk conspiracies had shown an immense dissention among the English people. (1) It had become apparent to the Protestant faction that a Catholic revival was gaining momentum in their country. (2) Elizabeth was in a rather awkward position. Besides her foreign disputes with both France and Spain, she had the former Scottish Queen Mary, her own cousin, under house arrest. International law forbade the peace-time imprisonment of one monarch by another. (3) Regardless of this fact, Elizabeth had kept Mary confined for over fifteen years. (4) Although there had been more than sufficient evidence to implicate Mary in several treasonous plots against the English Queen, Elizabeth steadfastly refused to have her executed. (5) Basically, the refusal to execute Mary was a political maneuver on Elizabeth's part. Few really know how Elizabeth regarded Mary personally, but she feared a Catholic uprising that would probably follow the beheading of the beloved Scottish sovereign. Also, Elizabeth knew that even the seemingly justifiable execution of another monarch would only weaken her own royal authoritarian status. (() (6)) Elizabeth's reluctance to execute Mary irritated her ministers, particularly Walsingham.

The Principal Secretary had worked extremely hard at gathering enough evidence to convict Mary of treason, but Elizabeth kept putting him off. His frustration caused Walsingham to direct his anger towards Mary herself. He concluded that Mary was far too much of a menace to Protestantism and that as long as she lived, this "bosom serpent" would never cease her traitorous scheming. (7) Conspiracy was second nature to Mary, so Walsingham swore that the next time Mary gained the opportunity to plot, he would have knowledge of her internal strategy. Walsingham was not above using the same techniques as the conspirators to complete this "curious ambition" to dispose of Queen Mary. (8) This time, Walsingham was confident that the fruit of his labor would be the execution of Mary. Now when Walsingham, aided by fellow minister William Cecil, decided that Mary had to be eliminated, a historical controversy over the moral foundation of this action began. Many historians condemned Walsingham for what they perceived as his underhanded tactics. (9) Other sources applauded the Secretary's devotion to duty.

(10) One supporter of Walsingham justified the Minister's actions by proclaiming that since Walsingham was a man "whose job it was to frustrate plots against his sovereign, we can hardly expect him to be more scrupulous than his adversaries." (11) Regardless of these moral issues surrounding the initiation of the Babington Plot, there was little doubt that Walsingham played a leading role in it. His first step was to gain absolute control over Mary. He had her moved from Tutbury, her prison for the last fifteen years, to the home of the Earl of Essex in Chartley. This sudden move did not raise Mary's suspicions because for years she had been practically begging for just such a transfer. Walsingham did not grant Mary's appeals out of the mere goodness of his heart. It was his belief that Mary had become too settled at Tutbury and had far too much contact with the outside world. From the secluded Chartley estate, Walsingham was assured of total access to all of Mary's communication. (12) Walsingham's next action was to convince Elizabeth to remove Lord Shrewsbury as Mary's guardian.

Walsingham then hand-picked Sir Amias Paulet as the replacement warden. While Walsingham was quite pleased with this "precise fellow," he became alarmed when Paulet went above and beyond his expectations as jailer. (13) Paulet had guards posted day and night, had all leaves taken from Mary's staff, and even forced Mary to stop doling out food to the poor because he saw this as an opportunity to bribe them. (14) Although Walsingham did want Mary under close observation, he did not want her totally removed from her agents. If she had remained unable to actively conspire, Walsingham would never have obtained grounds for her execution. Thus the Secretary had to find a way that enabled Mary to have a monitored communication with her Catholic supporters. (15) To find a Machiavellian means to such an end, Walsingham called in his primary agent, Thomas Phelippes. (16) This man was an expert in penmanship and deciphering in Latin, French, Italian, as well as his native English. Walsingham sent him to Chartley with the mission of finding a means in which a controlled mail route could be established.

(17) While Phelippes was groping about the dark passages of Chartley, Walsingham was enlisting another agent for his anti-Mary scenario. On rather trumped-up charges, Walsingham had a known Catholic sympathizer, Gilbert Gifford, arrested. (18) With persuasion, Walsingham convinced Gifford to work as a spy for him on the behalf of Elizabeth. Since Gifford had been an active Catholic spy for several years, Walsingham was wary of the man. To secure his loyalty, the Secretary had Gifford move onto Phelippes manor. This way, the Catholic double agent would be under surveillance at all times. He was sent shortly thereafter to Chartley to assist Phelippes. (19) Walsingham was always very concerned with having knowledge of what went on about him. He had an extensive spy network at his disposal long before he had launched plans for Mary into motion. (20) There was no place too sacred or too vile for Walsingham's business. He had either bought or placed spies in such diverse localities as the Roman Catholic Seminary at Rheims, France to the alcohol-drenched pubs of London.

(21) It was from this bloated espionage organization that Walsingham selected several more skilled men to aid in his endeavors. The Secretary had just engaged Arthur Gregory, an expert at resealing opened letters, and Thomas Rogers, a master letter-stealer, when Phelippes and Gifford returned victorious from their Chartley quest. (22) They had jointly conceived of the perfect route which would allow Mary to smuggle her correspondence. (23) Their idea was to use the weekly beer deliveries to the castle as Mary's mail route. Phelippes had invented a waterproof tube in which letters could be concealed in the barrel's cork. (24) This crafty method appealed greatly to Walsingham, but he had trouble convincing the pious jailer Paulet of its advantages. Paulet only agreed to this plan after much persuasion by his friend Phelippes and grand assurances from Walsingham that none of his own men would have to be corrupted to complete the scheme. (25) With the warden's approval, Walsingham set about hiring men to enact this plan. The first employee was a brewer from Burton.

This man, known only by the code name "The Honest Man," had previously run deliveries at Tutbury and held Mary's confidence. (26) The brewer was easily bought. Every week he was paid three times: once for his beer, once by Mary for his postman services, and yet again by Walsingham for that same duty. (27) Since Paulet refused to allow his people to contribute to Walsingham's plot, the Secretary was forced also to employ a man servant, simply known as "The Butler," whose job it was to take the letters from the keg to Mary's secretaries, Claude Nau and Lord Curll. (28) Through this mail circuit, Nau and Curll delivered the letters directly to Mary, aided her in ciphering replies, and returned these to the man servant. The letters were then sent to Walsingham. The Secretary read each letter, instructed Phelippes to make duplicates, and then sent the communications off on their true destinations. In this way Walsingham observed from the safety of his office, the birth of yet another conspiracy against his queen.

(29) This mail system was officially established on January 12, 1586, when the French Ambassador to England, Chateaneuf, sent a harmless test letter to Mary. The Ambassador had been informed of the mail route by Gifford, who was financially rewarded for his duty to the Catholic cause. The Scottish Queen was overjoyed by the unexpected communication. Mary had been cut off so long from friends that she had begun to lose hope. After Mary's reply, Chateaneuf deemed the system secure enough to send Mary a two-year accumulation of various letters. Walsingham carefully inspected this surplus mail and found a letter that would suit his purpose. (30) The letter was from Thomas Morgan, Mary's personal agent in Paris. (31) In it he commended a young gentleman named Anthony Babington to Mary and insisted he would be loyal. Babington was an esquire in his mid-twenties who had been a known Catholic supporter since his early teens. The letter provoked Mary into writing Babington who had just returned from France to his Dethycke estate. This was precisely what Walsingham had intended.

Even though she did not explicitly state her wish for the instigation of another Catholic plot, she did inform Babington that she would be grateful for his assistance in her escape. (32) Quite by chance, at the time Babington received Mary's letter, he was already composing one to her that outlined plans for her rescue. (33) Mary's letter added inspiration to his letter that blatantly hinted at the execution of Elizabeth by himself and six of his followers. With Elizabeth dead, Mary would have inherited the throne and the English people may have been returned to Catholicism. As incriminating as the letter was, Walsingham knew it would not be enough to convince Elizabeth that Mary's death was necessary. Hence Walsingham proceeded to add some fuel to the fire he had previously kindled. (34) Walsingham sent his spies to Paris and had them warn Morgan that Babington would not act until he had Mary's full approval. They thus instilled in Morgan the belief that it would be vital that Mary send written authorization before Babington would have the nerve to dispose of Elizabeth and place Mary on the English throne.

(35) Morgan was very suspicious by this turn of events, but he knew that Mary would want to take the risk. Mary was so desperate by this time that nothing--not even the chopping block--would deter her from making plans to escape. Morgan therefore drafted a letter that Mary should write to Babington and sent it to her in early July of 1586. Mary copied this letter word for word and sent it on to Babington. (36) This was the letter Walsingham had been anticipating. Unfortunately for the Secretary's purposes, Morgan had produced a letter that would be sufficient to incite Babington, while at the same time avoiding direct implication of Mary. Babington had requested Mary's blessing for his so-called "tragical execution" of Elizabeth and for her solemn promise to reward him once she became Queen of England. (37) Mary's reply simply stated however, that while she wanted to have nothing to do with the murder, she would reward anyone who helped her escape, regardless of how said escape was enacted.

(38) While this letter was not exactly what Walsingham desired, after thorough examination, he was able to find a phrase that could make it appear as though Mary was in direct violation of the Bond of Association. This bond, including the Act for the Security of the Queen's Royal Person, and the Continuence of the Realm of Peace that shortly followed it, were the edge Walsingham had over Mary. Under these pieces of legislation, anyone who participated in or merely sanctioned an attack upon Elizabeth could be tried for treason, regardless of royal status. (39) All Walsingham had to do was prove that Babington and his cohorts were bent on regicide and then show the connection between them and Mary. The phrase Walsingham plucked from Mary's letter was her suggestion that once the foreign troops had been prepared, "then shall it be time to set the six gentlemen to work." (40) Since the only work these bored noblemen had planned was the assassination of Elizabeth, Walsingham was positive he could ensnare Mary with his technicality. In this way, guilt by association would be the end of Mary and her death would have little or no effect on Elizabeth's royal power.

(41) While Walsingham was weaving his web, Babington was quite caught up in the romantic fantasy he had conjured in his youthful head. Babington failed to see the risk of his exploits. He saw only the fame, fortune, and even the Catholic satisfaction that would follow Mary's ascent to the throne. As Walsingham gleefully sifted through every incriminating document Phelippes had produced from the conspiratorial correspondence, Babington and his accomplice were sitting for a portrait that they believed would one day serve "as a memorial of so worthy an act." (42) Having shuffled soundly through his collection of evidence, Walsingham discovered that one detail was missing. He needed the names of the conspirators written on paper. (43) Such printed evidence would have held up nicely in a court of law. The method in which Walsingham intended to gather this damning testimony was such that even his most ardent supporters could not pass off as mere duty to the crown. Walsingham instructed Phelippes to attach a post-script to Mary's letter to Babington which requested him to provide all the names of his fellow conspirators.

Walsingham was banking on Phelippes superb forgery to present him with what would be as good as a written confession from these men. (44) Babington received the altered version of Mary's letter on July 29, 1586. Before he was able to reply, the plot became common knowledge and Walsingham was forced to order the arrests of the conspirators. It is unclear how news of the plots detection leaked, but Babington fled on August 4, moments after witnessing the arrest of his foremost partner in the conspiracy, John Ballard. (45) Before fleeing, Babington burned all his personal and public correspondence. He was discovered and arrested ten days later in St. John's Wood. (46) By the end of August, seventeen men and one woman had been arrested and sent to the Tower. (47) Mary was not arrested, but she was sent from Chartley to reside at the estate of a hunting acquaintance while all her private papers were confiscated. The secretaries Nau and Curll were quietly taken into custody following Mary's departure.

(48) With the arrests completed and the confessions pouring out of the prisoners, it was time for Walsingham to do the most ingenious of all his plotting. It was essential that Walsingham's part in this scheme not be discovered. If the general public had been aware that Elizabeth's minister, with her full consent, had a hand in this plot, sympathy for Queen Mary would have been generated. Elizabeth would not have been able then to order her execution for fear of a civil war erupting. Elizabeth commanded Walsingham "to keep to himself the depth and mannor [sic] of the discovery." (49) To follow the orders of his Queen, Walsingham had to use more deceitful tactics to conceal his earlier questionable actions. His major concern was the discrepancy that would arise in the confessions due to Phelippes frauded postscript. (50) Babington had already been asked to write Mary's reply as best he could. He did a remarkable accurate job. Too accurate for Walsingham because his statement included the post-script. There was no way Walsingham could use Babington's confession in this form.

Nau, Curll, and Mary would have cried forgery the moment they saw it at the trial. Some type of alteration was definitely deemed necessary here by the Principal Secretary. (51) Forging the entire confession was out of the question. Although Phelippes possessed the finesse required of the task, the risk of discovery while carrying out the swap was just too high. (52) Walsingham concluded that it would be safer to help Babington forget the post-script. Walsingham went personally to compliment Babington on his "exceptional" memory. However, Walsingham implied that the court would be much more pleased if he could only recall those first passages in more detail. Babington, ecstaticjust to be off the painful rack and now given hope forjudicial leniency for his cooperation, promised to try and remember every word of the mentioned sections. (53) It was in this manner that Babington played squarely into Walsingham's hand. He concentrated so hard on the details of the first few paragraphs, that Babington hastily wrote the remainder, this time excluding the post-script. Here was Walsingham's golden opportunity to corrupt the authenticity of evidence and absolutely clear his involvement.

He quickly had the statement processed and it became officially documented as an exhibit in the trial. (54) Another deception Walsingham employed, for the sole purpose of completing his goal of leading Mary to the block, was convincing Mary's secretaries that the court had possession of all Mary's and Babington's correspondence. He used Babington's sworn confession as well as several of Phelippes copies to pull off this charade. Once Curll and Nau believed the originals were intact, they were more willing to confess to Mary's involvement in the conspiracy and less concerned with asking questions that Walsingham was not quite prepared to answer. (55) Babington, Baliard and five others were put to death in rather cruel fashion on September 18, 1586. (56) Elizabeth had ordered the unusually drawn out ordeal of execution mainly because she held no respect for those men whose project it had been to kill her. Rather than simply hanging the men until they were dead, she had requested that the traditional method of executing traitors, the disembowelment and burning of the visceral organs, come before the hanging.

The English people were so disgusted by this act of barbarism, that Elizabeth ordered the remaining seven to be dealt with more swiftly. (57) Even with all the evidence Walsingham laid before Elizabeth, she still resisted the notion of bringing Mary to trial. The English Queen had hoped that her subjects would be content with the deaths of the other conspirators and that perhaps once more the burden of issuing Mary's execution would be lifted from her. Elizabeth was still fearful of the repercussions the execution of another monarch could have on her kingdom. (58) Walsingham was as determined, as Elizabeth was reluctant, to have Mary tried. After carefully persuading Elizabeth that it was the people's wish that justice be served, Walsingham was finally able to bring Mary to a public trial on October 14, 1586. It was at this trial that Walsingham publicly announced his personal view of his accomplishments.

As Mary charged him with trickery and foul play, Walsingham straight-facedly proclaimed "I call God to record that as a private person I have done nothing unbeseeming an honest man, nor as I bear the place of a public person, have I done anything unworthy of my place." (59) Mary was accused of treason, a verdict of guilty was read, and a sentence of death was placed on the Scottish Queen. Elizabeth had specifically ordered that the court was to find Mary not guilty, but the Council went against her wishes. Even with this decision, Elizabeth continued to delay the execution. Finally, Walsingham and William Cecil, the chief judge at Mary's trial, went behind Elizabeth's back and pushed her signed death warrant through the Council. (60) Mary, Queen of Scots, was beheaded on February 8, 1587. (61) Outwardly this action infuriated Elizabeth. She temporarily banished both ministers and several councilmen from her presence, but she began receiving them again as soon as it became clear that there would be no Catholic revolt in Mary's honor. (62) Walsingham's flair at second guessing the opposition made him an indispensable minister in Elizabeth's court.

Walsingham had received the position of Principal Secretary in 1573. From that time, he was able to defeat every plot that formed against his Queen. (63) While Walsingham's motives and doubtful morality still raise strong controversies among historians, there is no question that he played a larger role in the Babington Plot than did the gentleman for which it has been named. Although Babington and Mary were both very conspiratorial, full credit for the concoction of this particular plot rests solely with Sir Francis Walsingham. ENDNOTES 1. The Throckmorton and Norfolk plots of the early 1580's were highly complicated undertakings. Francis Throckmorton was a young, romantic Catholic supporter who had been caught up a bit too strongly in the spirit of revival. He was captured with an incriminating letter suggesting his part in a plot to murder Elizabeth. He was submitted to the rack and confessed to the Scottish Queen's involvement. He was put to death while Mary was not even tried. Lord Norfolk was involved in a plot with Mary, but more for political reasons than religious. When the plot was detected, Norfolk was hanged and once more Mary avoided prosecution. See. J.E.

Neale, Elizabeth I and Her Parliament: 1584-1601 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1957), 106. 2. Herbert Sherman German, The Scottish Queen New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1932), 448. 3. Stefan Zweig, Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles (New York: Viking, 1935), 358. On this day, 24 November 1586: Parliament’s intervention against Mary, Queen of Scots | History of Parliament Online History of Parliament Online Home Explore > Periods > Tudors > On This Day, 24 November 1586: Parliament’s Intervention Against Mary, Queen Of Scots Tudors On this day, 24 November 1586: Parliament’s intervention against Mary, Queen of Scots Further Reading Proceedings in the Parliaments of Elizabeth I ed. T.E. Hartley, vol.

II (Leicester, 1995) Stephen Alford Burghley: William Cecil at the Court of Elizabeth I (London, 2008) John Guy ‘My Heart is My Own’: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots (London, 2004) Retha M. Warnicke Mary, Queen of Scots (London, 2006) Our fourth specially commissioned article for Parliament Week. To find out more, visit On 24 November 1586 a delegation from the Lords and Commons went to meet Queen Elizabeth I at Richmond Palace, their mission: to convince her to order the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots. The Parliament of 1586 was called specifically because of Mary's complicity in the Babington Plot in August that year. The assassination in 1584 of William of Orange, the leader of the Dutch, and protestant, revolt against the Spanish rulers of the Netherlands, had added a new and particularly dangerous dimension to the religious conflicts of Europe. It was easy to assume that Elizabeth, the monarch of the most significant of the few countries in Europe which had abandoned their allegiance to the Pope, would be targeted next.

In a tense and febrile atmosphere, the English Protestant elite wanted to make sure that Elizabeth would not suffer the same fate; or that if she did, she would be succeeded by a Protestant – and certainly not by her cousin and closest heir, Mary, the Catholic Queen of Scots. Mary had fled to England in 1567 after being deposed in Scotland. Since then, she had been held in a more or less comfortable house arrest, her imprisonment caused by the increasing – and well-founded – anxiety of the English government that she would become the focus of Catholic plots. She had been held in a series of castles and fortified houses in the midlands, most recently in the custody of two reliable protestants: Sir Ralph Sadler and Sir Amyas Paulet . In the Parliament of 1584-5, the Council had managed to get Elizabeth to agree to an Act designed to protect England’s protestant future. The Act for the Queen’s Safety provided for the trial and death or exclusion from the succession of anyone involved in an invasion, rebellion, or plot against the Queen.

However it permitted the heir of such a person (meaning James VI of Scotland, Mary’s son) to succeed to the English throne as long as they were not involved in the conspiracy. This provision opened the way to an agreement between England and James, the Treaty of Berwick, signed in July 1586. The Treaty helped to make Mary reckless. Effectively disowned by her son, she ratcheted up her contacts with the Spanish King Philip II – but using intermediaries who had been turned by Elizabeth’s brilliant, and aggressively anti-Catholic secretary and spymaster Francis Walsingham . A scheme devised by the Spanish ambassador in London, Bernardino de Mendoza, was communicated to her by a young Catholic gentleman, Anthony Babington, in July. Her acceptance of the idea, in a ciphered letter that Walsingham read two days after it was written, sealed her fate: it was clear evidence that she had been involved in conspiracy against the Queen, and meant, under the 1585 Act, that she would be tried – and if found guilty, executed. The trial went ahead at Fotheringay, in Northamptonshire, in October, meticulously planned by William Cecil, Lord Burghley .

The guilty verdict was delivered in the Star Chamber at Westminster on 25 October. Having secured the result they had been seeking, Elizabeth’s Council, led by Burghley, now had to persuade an intensely reluctant Elizabeth to follow it through. Elizabeth’s extreme distaste for the execution – mostly because of her alarm at the idea of a Queen being subjected to a judicial process and a formal sentence – led to an enormous tussle between them over the following months. Burghley had planned for the sentence to be ratified by a new Parliament, and he used this body, which assembled on 29 October, to try to force her hand. The attack began in a debate on 3 November, in which councillors Sir Christopher Hatton , Sir Walter Mildmay and Sir Ralph Sadler all assailed Mary: Hatton said bitterly that ‘the manner of the Queen of Scot’s life and her practices from the beginning [have been] most filthy and detestable, if you look well into them you shall well find that her ambitious mind, grounded in papistry, hath still thirsted after this crown of England, and our overthrow’.

A joint petition of the two Houses to Elizabeth – drafted by Speaker of the Commons John Puckering, and carefully amended by Burghley – was presented on 12 November, requesting that ‘direction be given for further proceeding against the said Scottish Queen according to the effect and true meaning of the [Act for the Safety of the Queen’s person]. The Queen’s answer was gracious, but it gave no hint that she was prepared to execute Mary. On 24 November a second delegation visited the Queen, who continued to prevaricate in a long and convoluted speech: ‘I am not so void of judgement as not to see myne owne peril, nor yet so ignorant as not to know it were in nature a foolish course, to cherish a sword to cut mine own throat, nor so careless as not to weigh that my life daily is in hazard.’ But as for actually carrying out the execution, she went on to say: ‘if I should say it should not be done (by my faith) were more than I meant to tell you.

If I should say it shall be done, it were more than I could now assure or were convenient here to be declared… Your judgement I condemn not, neither do I mistake your reasons, but pray you to accept my thankfulness, excuse my doubtfulness, and take in good part my answer answerless’. Elizabeth eventually consented to have the verdict proclaimed publicly, on 6 December, to show that Parliament had achieved something; but even after that she sat on the death sentence for six weeks, before she finally signed it on 1 February 1587. To Elizabeth’s subsequent fury, before she had time to change her mind, Burghley had the sentence carried out at Fotheringay. At Mary's execution, the warrant was read from the scaffold by one of Walsingham’s sidekicks, Robert Beale ; afterwards, one of Cecil’s servants, Robert Wingfield , reported back to Cecil that it had been done. William Davison , the man who took the warrant to Walsingham, bore the brunt of the Queen’s anger. Author: Paul Seaward Queen Elizabeth I of England Queen Elizabeth I of England (b. 1533, r. 1558 - d.

1603) Often considered by many historians as England�s greatest monarch, Queen Elizabeth I ruled during an age that saw the expansion of the British monarchy to North America through voyages of discovery by men such as Sir Francis Drake and Sir Walter Raleigh. It witnessed the accomplishments of playwrights such as William Shakespeare and would change history by defeating the Spanish Armada. Although her reign saw many accomplishments that pushed Britain forward as one of the leading economic and military powers in the world, it was also made up of plots and assassinations that were intended for or falsely accused the queen and controversies, such as her claims of being a virgin and the amount of influence that her privy council had over her. Elizabeth's birth dramatically altered the course of English history. Although King Henry VIII of the Tudor dynastyhad an illegitimate son, he needed an heir from a queen to properly continue the dynasty. His first child to survive was, Mary , born to Catherine of Aragon , Henry�s first wife. After it was clear that Catherine could give him no more children, he ended his marriage, which provoked the English Reformation. Henry married the already pregnant Anne Boleyn , who gave birth to Elizabeth on September 7, 1533.

At the age of two she became motherless as the accusations of adultery, which were drummed up by Henry, sent her mother to the guillotine. She had a younger brother, Edward by Henry�s third wife, Jane Seymour, and who would follow his father as king. With two older siblings, no one at the time expected Elizabeth to matter much. Still, being the daughter of a king, Elizabeth had educational opportunities that were not available for most women of her age. At the hands of private tutors, she learned six languages: French, Spanish, Greek, Italian, Latin and Flemish along with her native English, studied theology, astronomy, physics, and other subjects in which she performed remarkably. After the early death of her brother Edward VI, her sister Mary inherited the throne. �Bloody� Mary , as she would become known, was a Roman Catholic and her reign saw the persecution of many Protestants. In an attempt to dethrone Mary, Protestants led by Thomas Wyatt started a rebellion. Mary insisted that her sister was active in the uprising and had her imprisoned in the Tower of London. After a few treacherous months she was released and sent away to an estate under the constant watch of her sister.

However, Elizabeth never gave in to her sister�s demand of converting to Roman Catholicism. In 1558, Mary died and Elizabeth became queen. Faced with a country that was reeling from religious differences, Elizabeth once again made the Church of England the official religion, although retaining some Roman Catholic traditions in the church by issuing the 39 Articles of 1563, which was designed to prevent the country from further turmoil. Her tolerance of Roman Catholicism would wane in her later years as assassination plots were uncovered that originated in at the hands of Roman Catholics that sought to reestablish a Roman Catholic queen. Pope Pius V excommunicated her in 1570 in hope of an uprising that would allow a Roman Catholic to once again restore the faith to England. During the 1580�s her tolerance ran out and sent many to their death. The figure in the conspiracies that was to take Elizabeth�s position as monarch was Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots . After the suspicious death of her second husband, Lord Darnley, in 1566, Mary, along with the Earl of Bothwell whom she had grown very close to had been accused of assassinating the King.

She was forced to leave Scotland and sought the protection of Elizabeth in England. During a nearly twenty-year stay, she was more than once suspected of conspiring to overthrow Elizabeth, but Elizabeth refused to have her executed. Only after her role in the Babington Plot was uncovered did Elizabeth send her to her death in 1587. In Parliament, Elizabeth ruled through her Privy Council. This included men such as the earl of Leicester, Lord Burghley, and later the Earl of Essex. They were her council in times of decision and had influence over the queen. Throughout her reign, Elizabeth was pressured to marry by Parliament in hope of producing an heir to the crown. Although she never married, Elizabeth received proposals from many prominent men in Europe. Throughout her life she defended her virginity, but rumors circulated that she was in love with Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester. After the suspicious death of his wife, Amy, Elizabeth was accused of plotting to kill her in order to be with her childhood love. The two never married, although Leicester would wed her cousin several years after the death of his wife. In 1588, Spain attempted to invade England, partially prompted by the execution of Mary Stuart .

During their invasion, the grand armada engaged the Royal Navy. After bad weather and a series of defeats, the armada was repulsed and England emerged as the prominent naval force in the world. England also expanded its commerce and companies like the British East India Company were established to enhance trade On March 24, 1603, Elizabeth died as the oldest monarch to rule England until King George III. Her era saw the advancement of England as a military might, restored the Anglican faith, and ruled her country effectively through council for 45 years in a time when women were still being looked upon as being inferior to men.. Although plots and conspiracies plagued her reign, her unification of the England is the reason for the label that is commonly attached to her as England�s greatest monarch. Annotated Bibliography Anonymous. �History of the Monarchy- Elizabeth I < > (22 December 2005). This article highlights Elizabeth�s life and does not go into great detail about the monarch. It provides an accurate depiction of the queen, but more information is needed to have a better picture of what life was like during her reign.

The article is easy to read and provides some interesting information about her life, especially her dealings with Catholics and possible suitors for marriage. The website is the official government website of the Royal Family and also has links to other monarchs that have reigned over Britannia Anonymous �Queen Elizabeth I� available from < > (22 December 2005). This article begins by discussing the marriages of her father, King Henry VIII, and gives some information about Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth�s mother. It then focuses on her childhood and the fondness showed to her by her stepmother�s newest husband, Thomas Seymour, brother of Jane. The article ends by discussing the assassination plots on her life by Mary, Queen of Scots, her treatment of Catholics, the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, and her relationship with Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex. The article has a vast amount of links at the bottom of the site and arranges the links by its appropriate subject, such as Men in Elizabeth�s life to the writings of the queen. I recommend the site to researchers that need to find quality links on Queen Elizabeth I. Briscoe, Alexandra.

�Elizabeth I: An Overview� BBC available from < > (22 December 2005).Briscoe�s article gives a brief description of the life of Queen Elizabeth. She touches minutely her early years, coronation, marriage proposals, the plots of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her final years. The article is well written and is suitable for students from the high school level and up. The last section of the site provides valuable links to a variety of web sites dealing with major figures and themes that were present during the life and historical work after her death. Briscoe�s main occupation is assisting in the production of documentaries for the BBC and specializes in the Elizabethan Era. Halsall, Paul. ed. �Queen Elizabeth I of England� Internet Modern History Sourcebook July 1998. available from < > (accessed 22 Sep 2005). This website provided by Paul Halsall is a collection of primary sources of speeches and letters by Elizabeth. They include responses to marriage proposals, religion, her farewell speech, and two responses to Parliament regarding their thoughts about her marrying. There is background information given before each response that allows the reader to understand the situation Elizabeth is responding to.

I recommend the site for researchers in need of a quality primary source by the queen. Paul Halsall once instructed at Fordham University and now teaches at the University of North Florida. Hammer, Paul E.J. �The Last Decade� History Today May 2003. 53:5 available from Academic Search Premier accessed 29 Sep 2005. Paul Hammer�s article looks at the major figures that made up Elizabeth�s Privy Council and their ability to influence her during her reign, especially in the 1590's, due to the close relationships she had wit some of the members.. The article examines individuals such as William Cecil (Lord Burghley), The Earl of Essex, and the impact of the earl of Leicester�s death in 1588 and the void that it created. The article also examines the power struggles that emerged between Essex and Robert Cecil, Burghley�s son, for control of the Privy Council and favor from Queen Elizabeth. The article is well written and is most suitable for a researcher who has prior knowledge of Elizabeth and her life. Hammer is an instructor of history at the University of St. Andrews in England. Hibbert, Christopher.

The Virgin Queen: Elizabeth I, Genius of the Golden Age. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994. Hibbert�s book offers a chronological look at the life of Queen Elizabeth in great detail. Throughout the book are colorful illustrations of the virgin queen and contains a genealogy of the Tudor Dynasty. I recommend the book to an experienced reader since the language used may bring about confusion due to its vast array of words that may be uncommon to the average reader. The bibliography of the book contains a vast amount of primary and secondary sources that may aid further research about Queen Elizabeth. Klein, Arthur Jay. Intolerance in the Reign of Elizabeth. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press Inc., 1968. Klein�s work focuses on the way Elizabeth handled the religious differences that England was facing during her reign, as well as her handling of Mary Stuart�s assassination plot and the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Klein uses as sources many acts of Parliament and proclamations to show how the Elizabethan government treated Catholics and Protestants in restoring the Anglican Church after the reign of her sister, Mary.

The book is very detailed and should be used by serious scholars attempting to find out more on the way Elizabeth handled the religious questions of her day. Klein was a professor of history at Wheaton College in Massachusetts and wishes that the American student looking to research the religious history of the period use his bibliography as a way to guide their research to prevent confusion in the vast amount of sources that are available on the subject. Loades, David. Elizabeth I. New York: Hambledon and London, 2003. Loades' book attempts to describe Elizabeth�s role in the events that marked her reign with more clarity than previous authors. The book covers Henry�s marriages and the span of Elizabeth�s life chronologically, from her childhood and reign up to her death in 1603. Loades arranges the chapters according to certain era�s of the queen�s life, such as the threats she faced, the war with Spain, her relations with her sister, Queen �Bloody Mary,� and other topics that characterize her reign. The book contains illustrations of Elizabeth and prominent individuals who Elizabeth interacted with throughout her life.

The end of the book contains several pages of notes to clarify what is being discussed as well as a bibliography full of primary and secondary sources he uses that can be used as tools for further research. The author admits that his thinking of Elizabeth has been influenced by other writers on the subject through interactions and conferences. I highly recommend the book for someone doing research about the queen due to its scholarly work and recent publication that shows current thinking about Elizabeth�s reign. O�Malley, John W. �Excommunicating Politicians.� America 27 Sep 2004. available from Academic Search Premier Accessed 29 Sep 2005. O�Malley�s article examines the history of the excommunication of leading politicians and leaders beginning in the eleventh century with emperor Henry IV by Pope Gregory VII up to action by New Orleans Bishop Joseph Rummel against three Catholics who protested his plan to end the racial segregation that existed in New Orleans schools. The article briefly mentions Elizabeth and describes that the reason she was excommunicated was to start a rebellion to overthrow the queen and allow a Catholic to become England�s monarch. It is a very well written article, but the reader will not find much about Elizabeth or Henry�s excommunication.

O�Malley is a professor of church history at the Weston Jesuit School of Theology in Cambridge, Mass., and is also an author who released a book in 2004, The Four Cultures of the West. Plowden, Allison. Two Queens In One Isle: The Deadly Relationship Between Elizabeth I & Mary Queen of Scots. Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing, 1999. Plowden�s book examines the rise to power of Queen Elizabeth and Mary, Queen of Scots and the relationship that they had that ended with Mary losing her head in 1587. Plowden thoroughly describes Mary�s assassination plots of Elizabeth as well as Mary�s suspected role of the killing of her second husband, Lord Darnley, with the Earl of Bothwell as an accomplice, that ultimately caused a revolt and sent Mary in exile to England protected by Elizabeth. She also describes the jealousies that the Queens had for one another as well as a glimpse into Elizabeth�s personal thoughts on the situation, imprisonment, and eventual execution of Mary. Allison Plowden is a former script writer and editor for the BBC turned author and has several publications on Queen Elizabeth.

This book is a very good source on the relationship between the two queens. Saunders, Will. �Faction in the Reign of Elizabeth I.� History Review March 2004 Issue 48 accessed 29 Sep 2005. available from Academic Search Premier. The article written by Will Saunders examines the role that factions played in the decision-making that occurred under Queen Elizabeth. The article describes what a faction is then looks at different interpretations of her reign and how she ruled her court by twentieth century writers such as John Neale, Simon Adams, Susan Doran, and John Guy and Steven Alford (together). Their descriptions of Elizabeth differ dramatically, with Doran defending that Elizabeth was a strong monarch that ruled very assertively while Neale argues that she was highly influenced and manipulated by her advisors. Saunders is the head of history at the Persy School for Girls in Cambridge.

The Elizabeth Files » Plots Against Elizabeth I Plots Against Elizabeth I Posted By claire on January 29, 2010 Sir Francis Walsingham One of Elizabeth I’s main achievements has got to be actually becoming Queen by not only rising above her illegitimacy and the scandal surrounding her mother, Anne Boleyn, but also surviving long enough to actually inherit the throne from her half-sister Mary. Elizabeth life had been in very real danger during Mary I’s reign when her name was linked with Wyatt’s Rebellion, an uprising against Mary I and an attempt to replace her with Elizabeth. However, the threat to Elizabeth’s life did not end on the day that she became Queen. There were countless plots against Elizabeth I and many of these are listed in a chapter entitled “How Many Plots Were There to Kill Elizabeth I?” in the book that I’m reading at the moment, “How Fat Was Henry VIII? And 101 Other Questions on Royal History”. Another of Elizabeth’s achievements was surviving and having a long and successful reign.

Elizabeth’s life was in constant danger after Pope Pius V issued the Bull Regnans in Excelsis of Excommunication and Deposition against Elizabeth in 1570, which was a green light for Catholics to rise against her and assassinate her. This Bull led to Elizabeth and her government passing strong laws against the Catholics even though Elizabeth had once said that she had “no desire to make windows into men’s souls”. How Many Plots Were There to Kill Elizabeth I? In December 1583, Elizabeth I wrote to the French Ambassador:- “There are more than two hundred men of all ages who, at the instigation of the Jesuits, conspire to kill me.” and she wasn’t exaggerating! In October 1583, Elizabeth I’s life was threatened by John Somerville, a Catholic from Warwickshire, who had been stirred up by the anti-Elizabeth I propaganda which the Jesuits were circulating. With the aim of seeing “her head on a pole, for she was a serpent and a viper”, Somerville set out to assassinate his Queen with a pistol. Fortunately, he was arrested, found guilty and sentenced to death before he could kill the Queen.

He committed suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell in the Tower of London before his death sentence could be carried out. Just a year later, Elizabeth I escaped death again when would-be assassin Dr William Parry, a Welsh MP who hid in the Queen’s garden at Richmond Palace, was “so daunted with the majesty of her presence in which he saw the image of her father, King Henry VIII” that he could not murder the Queen. In “How Fat Was Henry VIII?”, Raymond Lamont Brown writes of how it is not known what reason Parry had for his plot to assassinate the Queen, but he was known to William Cecil, Lord Burleigh and worked as a spy, so he claimed that he was acting as a regicide “in order to infiltrate papist circles”. However, he had been heard to boast that he would assassinate Elizabeth if he ever had the opportunity and some believed that he was acting on behalf of Mary, Queen of Scots, with a papal blessing. Parry was sentenced to death and ended his life on the gallows. The Barge Incident One of the most famous attempts on Elizabeth’s life was while the Queen was travelling by barge down the River Thames.

A shot rang out and one of the Queen’s bargemen collapsed from a bullet wound which was clearly intended for the Queen. As Elizabeth passed him her handkerchief to put on his wound, She said “Be of good cheer, for you will never want. For the bullet was meant for me.” The Ridolfi Plot This plot surfaced in 1571 and it aimed to assassinate Elizabeth I and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots who was to be married to Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk. The plot takes its name from Roberto Ridolfi, a Florentine banker, who was a papal agent, a go-between for the Spanish and the Duke of Norfolk, and the man responsible for funding the rebellion which would see a Northern Catholic rebellion and an invasions by the Spanish under Philip of Spain. Unfortunately for the Catholics and for the Duke of Norfolk, Elizabeth’s secret service, headed by her spymaster Sir Francis Walsingham, uncovered the plot and it collapsed. The Duke of Norfolk was executed as a traitor in 1572 and Elizabeth never trusted Mary, Queen of Scots ever again.

The Throgmorton Plot This plot, in 1583, was another attempt to assassinate Elizabeth and replace her with the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots. The plot takes its name from Francis Throgmorton, a Catholic who was involved in a number of plots against Elizabeth I. This plot involved Throgmorton acting as a go-between for Mary, Queen of Scots and her agent Thomas Morgan, and the Spanish Ambassador, Don Bernardino de Mendoza. Again, Elizabeth’s secret service got wind of the plot and arrested Throgmorton who, under torture, revealed that the Duke of Guise was planning to invade England from the Spanish Netherlands. As a result of this plot, Throgmorton was executed at Tyburn and Mendoza was thrown out of England and sent back to Spain. The Babington Plot The Babington Plot of 1586 was yet another plot which involved Mary, Queen of Scots. The plan was to assassinate Elizabeth, encourage a Catholic rising and put the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots on the English throne. This plot is named after Anthony Babington, a man who had worked in Mary, Queen of Scots’s employ as a page.

Babington set up a secret society which aimed to help and protect Jesuit infiltrators coming to England to get rid of the heretic Elizabeth I. His society also had links with Mary’s emissaries in Europe who could be called on for aid. The plot had the Pope’s blessing and although it was led by Babington it was actually thought up by John Ballard, a Jesuit priest. Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s spymaster, proved how indispensable he was by uncovering this plot and saving his Queen’s life. Ballard, the Jesuit priest, was arrested and tortured on the rack. He was then executed. Although Babington tried to save his neck by offering information to Elizabeth’s secret service and then fleeing in disguise, he was eventually arrested and was executed as a traitor in September 1586. This plot was the undoing of Mary, Queen of Scots. She had been implicated in many plots against Elizabeth in the past but this was the last straw. She was beheaded at Fotheringay Castle on the 8th February 1587 after a special court found her guilty of treason.

These are just a few of the plots that Elizabeth survived thanks to God’s protection, luck and the skill of her secret service. Elizabeth more than just survived though, unlike her half-brother and half-sister, she had a long and prosperous reign, ruling the country for over 40 years in a reign known as “The Golden Age”. Source The question regarding plots against Elizabeth I is just one of the interesting historical questions examined in “How Fat Was Henry VIII? And 101 Other Questions on Royal History” . This book also examines “Was Amy Robsart, Lady Dudley, murdered by a queen’s Command?” and “Who was the first monarch to install a flushing toilet?”, which both concern Elizabeth I.

Question: The Babington Plot was intended to dethrone which English monarch?
Answer: Elizabeth I