"The word must is not to be used to princes"

Elizabeth I’s statement, “The word must is not to be used to princes,” reveals her resolute stance regarding royal prerogative, power, and autonomy. She rebukes the notion that anyone could impose obligations upon a sovereign, emphasizing that monarchs, as ultimate authorities within their realms, are not subject to command but are instead the givers of commands. Elizabeth’s phrasing elevates her status by categorically rejecting language that suggests compulsion or subordination; the implication is clear that rulers exist above ordinary dictates, bound by their own conscience and sovereignty rather than the imperatives of subjects or advisers.

By refusing the word “must,” she asserts the divine right and independence often associated with Renaissance monarchy. For Elizabeth, royal authority is unyielding and must not be compromised by suggestions of duty pressed upon her will. Such language would threaten not just the dignity of the throne, but the delicate political balance sustaining monarchical power. Furthermore, her words serve as a warning to courtiers and foreign envoys, reminding them of the limits of their influence. The monarch is receptive to counsel, but her decisions flow from her own judgment rather than outside insistence.

This assertion of autonomy goes beyond personal ego; it is a calculated strategy for leadership. As a woman ruler facing relentless challenges to her legitimacy, Elizabeth’s choice to resist compulsion, in word and in action, reinforces her control and the symbolic separation of her office from ordinary life. Her statement resonates with a broader philosophy of rule, where obeying “must” could be perceived as weakness or loss of sovereignty. By placing limits on what can be demanded of her, Elizabeth maintains the unique position of the prince as solitary arbiter, responsible only to God and history. This underscores her political astuteness and the enduring tension between power and expectation in her reign.