Succession 1603 - From Tudors to Stuarts - The passing of the English crown from Elizabeth I to James VI & I was welcomed by a nation hungry for change

The passing of the English crown from Elizabeth I to James VI & I was welcomed by a nation hungry for change. But, writes Susan Doran, it wasn't long before tensions began to rise between the incoming king and his new subjects

- By Susan Doran

Early March 1603 found Sir Robert Cecil, Elizabeth I’s secretary of state, wracked by anxiety. The queen had become “ill disposed”, rapidly losing appetite and energy. It was reported that she could no longer “abide discourses of government and state”, but preferred to hear “old Canterbery tales”.

On 11 March, matters worsened dramatically. An abscess burst in the queen’s throat, causing consternation among her attendants and sparking fears that she might be dying. A week later, her demise seemed imminent.

Since Elizabeth had no named heir, the privy council had to act while she was still alive to prevent a power vacuum – or, worse still, a disputed succession. With Cecil at the helm, the council drafted a proclamation naming James VI of Scotland as the rightful king of England, and arranged for leading members of the nobility and political elite to sign it. Seemingly, no one objected. So, when Elizabeth died in the early hours of 24 March, all was ready. At 9am Cecil read out the proclamation at Whitehall announcing James’s accession, and a deputation of lords, bishops, judges and officials processed into the City of London to promulgate it again. That same proclamation would be read out in towns and cities across England.

A contemporary depiction of the coronation of James I and Anna of Denmark at Westminster Abbey, 25 July 1603. Many believed that, under its new monarch, England would “recover her youth againe”.