How Far Did Essex Cause His Own Downfall?

In 1600 Essex's source of income (the monopoly) was not renewed and his attitude shifted from sorrow to rage and rebellion when his freedom from going behind Elizabeth's back to go to war was granted. His power at court was weakened when he led an unsuccessful rebellion in 1601 where he rebelled against Elizabeth and the court faction - led by Robert Cecil - to gain further influence and control at court. These sources suggests the Earl of Essex caused his own downfall.

Source 10 suggests that Elizabeth had a decent relationship with Essex as she gave him "£4,000 to clear" his "debt". This questions how he came into debt. She understands why Essex was acting like a child; he didn't want to grow up. She says that her "hand shall be readier to help" him "than any other". She told him to be "wise to help yourself" and not to give his "enemies advantage". This is a system of patronage. By "enemies", she
means the Cecil faction.
This source was written by Elizabeth herself to Essex in 1594, five or six years before the rebellion and his downfall had not been complete yet. However, he started to rebel long before that. This was because he was used to the way Elizabeth spoilt him like he was her child. Source 11, written by Sir Robert Naunton in 1641, tells us that if they had a more "proper conduct" - if they maintained a professional relationship - he might not have rebelled. Their affection would also not be "so hot and cold". This means that they had many arguments and falling outs which could be a reason why he started to rebel. In addition to this view, Essex's response in Source 12 at the time of his death was that he "never had any treacherous intentions towards Her Majesty". This makes me consider whether he was lying about that as his and Elizabeth's affection was hot and cold (as it says in source 11), where they had lots of arguments. Possibly Essex could not have his way and that is
why he rebelled. He might have had no intentions to hurt Elizabeth because she gave him "£4,000" and he is like her "new adopted son" as said in Source 11. He states in Source 12 that he may had been "mislead to break the law". This makes me consider how he was mislead as he had no evidence to say so. Robert Naunton - who wrote Source - was a writer and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times. He was elected Member of Parliament at a by-election in 1606.

The difference between Essex and Cecil was great. In a different source he criticised Essex as a child and a liar. This is evidence in Source 12 where he states he did not have any "intentions towards Her Majesty". Obviously he did because he rebelled against her. Cecil illustrated his personality and was obviously saying that Essex doesn't have that. For example, he says that "for wit, i give you pre-eminence: you have it abundantly." He said that he had "innocence, conscience, truth and honesty to defend me against the slander". This implies that Essex didn't have any of that and it would be wise for him to submit to Elizabeth's will. Essex is a delinquent whereas Cecil stands as an upright man.

The three central contentions of the old Orthodoxy were: an old ageing queen lost her grip on events, the bitter rivalry between the Cecil and Essex factions destabilised the regime at its heart and in the localities, and if Essex could have led a successful coup in had he made fewer mistakes. Future research can reinstate them to their former primacy, but the prospect of this happening is remote. Elizabeth dealt with the rebellion reasonably well as she displayed mature wisdom in keeping the door open for her favourite to settle down into a responsible minister for as long as possible. She displayed a strength of character by standing up to his persistant demands that his wished be met.

He only had a few followers that supported him with his rebellion. Some of these included the Earl of Southampton who was imprisoned but then released when Elizabeth died, the Earl of Rutland who was put in the tower and fined and the Earl of Bedford who was also fined with £3,000 and placed under house arrest. One of the reasons he didn't accomplish his rebellion was because of his lack of followers.