I get the impression that England sat behind the major powers of Europe such as Spain, France and Austria and on par with the Netherlands. Yet because of a strong trading position and the relative security afforded by the channel England was able to punch above its weight. Yet I find it very difficult to distinguish what came after with the industrial revolution and the empire and to retrospectively make England seem bigger than it actually was. Further, was Elizabeth's position stronger than say that of her father Henry VIII or her successors James I and Charles I?
Well in terms of England's own history the Tudor and Elizabethan was the strongest they had ever been in European affairs. Under Elizabeth the English saw off the major power of the time, the Spanish with the repelling of their armada.
But you're correct in the notion they were behind the other powers, but they were catching up fast.
Militarily, the potential invasion by Spain proved how close to oblivion England came. The army was small, outdated, and poorly trained. Religious tensions in England and Ireland meant that along with internal rebellion the country could have fell within days had the English not been lucky enough that storms struck the Channel. This led to the focus on naval power, which would lead to England becoming the naval power after about 100 years.
But in terms of civil society, the war had sort of drained the economy. But the colonial outposts that were established in her reign would see an upswing in the economy.
As for Elizabeth's position, it's sort of a difficult one to say. Henry VIII was a very competent ruler, bringing in and I'd argue what he had done with the country had given Elizabeth a good position as ruler. As for James and Charles, they were not popular monarchs, at least in the eyes of parliament. The biggest problems in England were still religious tensions. However, they were cooled massively under Elizabeth. James and Charles were far lees concerned with that.
I'd probably ranks Spain first, then France, then England (if we discount the jumbled Holy Roman Empire), ahead of the Netherlands.
When we consider the Spanish Armada's failure, we need to examine the strategic and tactical picture simultaneously.
I wrote a bit about how England and Spain developed their respective navies here and here.
The key points are:
Henry VIII Tudor was initially allied with Charles V of Spain, and his first wife was Catherine of Aragon, sister of Charles V. Henry had wanted to marry his first daughter Mary to Charles V, although Charles married a Portuguese bride with larger dowry. Instead, Mary was married to Philip II of Spain. This was part of Charles V's grand strategy of a northern orbit: Spain - England - Low Countries.
The period of Mary's rule of England saw Spanish naval knowledge being absorbed by English shipbuilders. Mary ordered the building of race-built galleons following Spanish design but with emphasis on gunnery. This includes more guns and better reloading mechanisms, in particular re-design of the gun carriages to use 4 wheels. So basically while the vessels were designed in Spanish style, the armament was done in English style.
Elizabeth, as we know now, was a Protestant and eventually led England away from Spain's orbit to become an outright adversary. She ordered further ships built following the design done in the era of Mary. These are the ships that led the battle against the Spanish Armada in 1588.
During the invasion attempt that is the Spanish Armada of 1588, the two fleets had very different objectives, you can read more here.
The story of the naval comparison doesn't end here. Drake wanted to press the English advantage: to attack the surviving Spanish ships, capture the treasure fleet, and apply pressure against Spain's dominance over Portugal. The so-called English Armada failed, with the loss of several ships, and severely drained the weak English treasury.
If the Spanish had succeeded in landing troops in England, most agree that they will have won. The English land troops are inexperienced, weak, and undisciplined. The English also lacked effective fortifications other than the Tower of London itself.
References