Simply? No.

Elizabeth was cut in the mould of her father but she wasn’t an absolutist insofar as he was. Rather she was a strong woman surrounded by equally strong advisors; and found herself in both the front line of the wider European religious wars; inheriting the mess her father, brother and sister had left her in terms of English religious conflict; and coping with a society which was undergoing profound social change at the same time.

Given this, it would be tempting to think she ruled by decree. Not so. She worked with parliament throughout her reign never really clashing with it and when faced with serious financial difficulties she was willing to concede to it (in 1602 for example in return for financial aid Parliament was granted the never before seen grant of discussing affairs of state).

Given this, it is clear she maintained what liberties and rights Parliament had at the time to the best of her ability.

Added to that I must disagree with the idea of hers being a police state. It was far from it. Yes, she had with her stalwart defenders who were alarmist when it come to the Catholic threat but they had good reason to be.

Walsingham himself had been in Paris for the St Bartholomew’s Day massacres and had witnessed, first hand, the bloody effects of Catholic violence. And there actually were attempts to kill the queen.

The spy networks of Elizabeth however were not as unified or as organised as they are often made out do be. Walsingham, the Cecil’s and Essex each had their own networks of agents, often in competition with one another (and where the competition and rivalry grew out of control you have woeful situations like the accusation and execution of Dr Lopez).

Added to that the spy networks were thwarted by an equally well organised and cunning network of Catholics within England many times. It is clear that from the point of view of her advisors, Elizabeth’s survival and success was a close run thing. Far closer to contemporaries than we give credit for.

Finally the idea that Elizabeth persecuted Catholics seemingly for the sake of it is entirely false. The game changed in 1570 when Pope Pius issued a bull (smuggled into England and nailed to the gates of the palace of the Bishop of London) declaring Elizabeth a heretic and freeing all her subjects from loyalty to her and basically saying if they killed her? It was no sin.

This immediately led to the 1571 Treason Act (notice- a parliamentary law not an absolutist decree) which basically equated saying she was a heretic or should be toppled (if proven by a court of law) was treason.

Catholics now had a dilemma; if they claimed they obeyed the authority of the Pope? It meant they were supportive of his decree. If they would not agree with it as they were loyal? Why stay with the Catholic Church?

It didn’t help that the authorities discovered a plot that year to murder Elizabeth which involved the Pope as well; he was sending money to English Catholics who supported Mary of Scotland via the Florentine merchant Roberto Di Ridolfi.

Sources:

*Hogge, Alice; God’s Secret Agents; 2005; HarperCollins

*Rowse, A.L.; The expansion of Elizabethan England; 1955; Macmillan

*Alford, Stephen; The Watchers; 2012; Allen Lane

Elizabethan 'Merry England' would be described today as a police state. The only check on her power was the comparatively modest central forces at her command - military and otherwise and the relative precariousness of her position. Likewise she typically only paid attention to her people - magnates-commoners when she needed financial and / or other support.

In a desperate life and death struggle (on numerous levels) with the Catholics (individuals-powerful states). There were the full panoply of secret police, surveillance etc. and your rights were both generally few and unless with influence, often waved away. With torture a routine-standard practice.

She would have loved to have had and doubtless fully used the powers of a Sun king, Frederick the Great or Russian Tsar etc.