From Tudor to Stuart: The Regime Change from Elizabeth I to James I
by Susan Doran, book review by Max Smith
Just before the death of Queen Elizabeth I, a new, foreign king was simultaneously being chosen to ascend to the throne of England and take over as a result of her heirless reign. King James VI of Scotland (later King James I) was about to transform the English monarchy in his own right, but was this really the dramatic transition that some believe it to be or simply a continuation of Elizabethan values and practices? This is the question that historian Susan Doran asks in her 2024 work entitled From Tudor to Stuart: The Regime Change from Elizabeth I to James I, in which she explores the circumstances leading to the dynastic transformation that occurred at the beginning of the 17th century, and the consequences which resulted from it.
In her introduction, Doran claims that “James’s accession was far less smooth than is often supposed” arguing that despite his eventual acceptance as the new monarch and relatively unchallenged rulership over the country, there were a number of significant obstacles which initially stood in his way. However, at the same time, Doran also argues that his reign did not lead to significant alterations in monarchical institutions nor alterations in monarchical institutions, rather those institutions he inherited “remained fundamentally intact.” This level of nuance within Doran’s thesis is simultaneously what I respect about her writing, as well as what frustrates me the most. Her bibliography is well rounded and the methodology is sound, yet she seems almost hesitant to challenge the historiography in any meaningful way, carefully treading between ideas that James I’s rule led to sweeping changes and very few, if at all.
The organization of this work follows the formula of many others we have read this semester. Part 1 is entitled “Succession and Ascension” which she begins by summarizing the end of Queen Elizabeth’s life, as well as the machinations within her own court which would ultimately set up James I as her natural successor. Doran states that the queen’s “unwillingness to make provision for the succession” ultimately harmed her reputation among the people and subsequent historians. Within this section she also utilizes a fair amount of environmental history and examples of social unrest, pointing to instances such as the great dearth of 1595-97 as well as protests and riots caused by the ongoing practice of enclosing public lands. Doran ultimately argues however the extensive grief that was displayed upon her death and funeral procession was not a show of fake emotions.
Part 2 explores the people and institutions at play during the reign of James I, of which his wife Anna is a central focus. The death of her two young daughters Mary and Sophie, as well as their eldest son Henry took a considerable toll on her well being as well as her relationship with her husband. In her public life, Anna’s catholicism was widely known, however Doran argues that James used this to his advantage when garnering the sympathy of catholics both within the country and abroad. She adhered to the patriarchal system in place at the time, retreating from disputes with her husband when he overruled her suggestions about appointments and the like, however Doran also points out that this meant the king ultimately received the majority of the blame when it came to her lavish spending and lifestyle.
This section also discusses the roles and responsibilities assumed by James’ Privy Council and Councillors of which there were many. Perhaps of one king James’ most enduring reputational qualities was his affinity for hunting, during which time he would spend long periods away from the city and in the countryside, including when his own children had passed away and he refused to return home to console his wife. His subjects had begun to accuse James of disinterest in his monarchical duties, saying of him that he attended to “nothing but his pleasures, especially to the chase… warning him, too, that unless he changes he will bring himself and the kingdom as well down to the ground.” Although oftentimes untrusting of their advice, Doran notes that king Jmes appointed councilors to a “significant number of the sixteen vacant posts that were filled after Elizabeth’s death,” a far cry from his predecessor.
In part 3 of her work Doran examines the religions and politics which governed this era, and how it affected the ecclesiastical and popular opinion of the King. James continually fought with English puritans in an effort to impose conformity amongst them, however he simultaneously wanted to avoid a “serious confrontation with the Puritan clergy and their lay supporters” and therefore remained content simply with promises of future obedience. James not only fought with Puritans, but Catholics as well. In fact Doran makes an argument for continuity between the regimes of James and Elizabeth by claiming that he kept many of the discriminatory policies against Catholics despite his wife’s religious standings. Although initially he displayed a sense of moderation towards them, in Doran’s words “James had no intention of permitting full toleration even if Catholics proved loyal.”
James’ persecution may not have been as harsh as his predecessors’, however he also did not stray far from the beliefs of Elizabeth when it came to the administering of recusant fines and even banishments of catholic believers and priests. In this chapter Doran quotes one anonymous parishioner who stated “despite the king denouncing ‘war’ against them at his accession, he was now carrying out ‘all maner of persecution’ against them.”
After having read this work, I still cannot fully decipher which side Doran is taking when it comes to the transition between regimes; that of disruption or that of continuity. I think in many ways she plays it safe when it comes to James I following in Elizabeth’s footsteps, claiming that it “did not result in a radical break with the past.” Yet in others she seemingly contradicts herself by stating that his reign altered many aspects of the English crown. I believe it is of course possible that both of these ideas can be true at once, however I wish she had been more deliberate when stating her thesis.