How serious was the Essex rebellion of 1601?
The Essex rebellion of 1601, although cantered around the capital of London, the worst place for a rebellion to take place, was on the whole a minor thorn in the side of Elizabeth and didn’t pose a direct threat.
The Essex rebellion was a rebellion lead by the Earl of Essex in response to his fall from position after his failure in the Tyrone rebellion in Ireland. Feeling distraught, he saw this change in relations with the queen a result of her advisors such as Cecil, whom he had much rivalry with, and wanted to have him removed from power; although many are unsure if would have removed the monarch herself had he succeeded. Essex and nobles/gentry loyal to him attempted to hold a audience with the queen by force. However this failed and he was later executed a traitor.
One of the reasons you could argue the Essex rebellion had little seriousness to it was that it had little support, partially due to Elizabeth being a relatively popular queen at this point and had been ruling on the throne for 42 years. The longer a monarch is established on the throne, the less likely it will be for a rebellion to have as much success as the monarch would have had enough time to gather support amongst the population and control the Nobles and gentry whom serve her. This lacking in support for Essex and his cause can be seen when he misjudged the allegiance of the people of London who he hoped would help him in his aims. Instead of joining in they remained complainant and loyal to the established government. Without the support of the Londoners the rebellion would even harder for Essex to accomplish.
Furthermore, Essex misjudged the support he’d get from his own army. Essex, being a Earl, had an a army of 17,000 men which he could commit to conflicts at the queens request, such as in Ireland during the Tyrone rebellion. In order to complete his rebellion he was going to need many fighting troops to overcome any armies that wished to stop his plans. However, Essex failed to rally more than 200 soldiers in hic cause, far from the 17,000 he had in Ireland beforehand. The fact he had so little support would further strength the argument he had no local sympathisers to his cause, and without an army of any significant proportions would make the change of the rebellion being any threat much smaller.
However, in some ways you could argue it was a serious threat. For example the fact it happened in the capital would be a strong reason, as if it happened in the capital it would mean the conflict was very close to the monarch and if a rebellion is close to the monarch it’s much more likely they can capture the monarch and ensure their demands are accepted. However, even though the rebellion happened in the capital its arguable if arguable if Essex had any real advantage with all the other factors such as the lack of troops and lacking in Londoner support making it all the more difficult.
In conclusion although you can argue the rebellion happened very close to the queen and that could have made the situation very serious the fact so little local support existed for Essex and his failure to rabble even a significant army made the Essex rebellion on the whole a very minor threat to Elizabeth and her hold on power.