To what extent did Elizabeth's authority decline in the years 1589 to 1603?

By the year 1589, Elizabeth was old and increasingly decrepid. She was disillusioned wth those around her and the death of many of her great councillors limited her ability to rule successfully. Furthermore, factional rivalry between her remaining influential councillors Cecil and Essex served to undermine her authority on matters such as the succession. Yet, the final years of her reign were not solely dominated by faction and decline. Her conduct of foreign affairs, her well judged religious policy, and the legacy of the Elizabethan Golden Age suggest that her authority remained intact between 1589 and 1603. 

The death of Elizabeth's faithful servant Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, in 1589 was a blow not just to her but to royal authority in general. He was a competent councillor who understood finances proficiently. His death was followed by a barrage of others. Mildmay, Warwick, Walsingham and Hatton followed soon after. Walsingham was the leading expert in espionage, and had foiled countless plots against the Queen, whilst also creating the Bond of Association in 1584, and he was undoubtedly irreplaceable. Hatton and Leicester were patent-sellers, and the patronage system was thrown into imbalance with their deaths. Elizabeth's main issue was that she failed to replace these stalwart councillors. Instead she insisted on employing their less-skilled next of kin. This caused factional disarray, as middle-aged, untrained sons filled the positions desired by young politicians. An example of this would be her refusal to let her great secretary Burghley retire, instead allowing him to employ his son Robert Cecil to support him. This caused Essex, a young councillor, great disappointement, as Cecil filled the roles Essex yearned for himself. As mentioned, the rivalry between the two families would further contribute to an already greatly undermined royal authority.

Yet, the Gloriana should also be noted for her 'Golden Age' legacy. She reigned for forty five years and enjoyed religious, foreign and national stability. A reign that boasted such an increase in culture, such as the birth of Shakespearean literature, does not suggest a context of turmoil in England. Furthermore her legacy greatly benefitted her successor James I, despite financial issues he inherited a largely stable situation. Despite most of the succession being conducted by Cecil whilst Elizabeth lay on her deathbed, it must be seen as a sign of success that she was succeeded by a legitimate Protestant. The legacy of the Tudor dynasty was not dimished by her later years. 

Royal authority declined to an extent at the end of Elizabeth's reign but this was to be expected as her councillors died and she became increasingly aged. Yet, her authority was not completely diminished in this period. The infamous Golden Speech of 1601 was a piece of oratory that did not demonstrate a lack of prerogative, and the Queen continued to maintain her absolute royal prerogative throughout her reign (much to the frustration of her Parliaments). To conclude, there was inevitable decline at the end of her reign, as she failed to replace her great councillors and did not resolve the factional rivalry that dominated the end of her reign. Royal authority might have been lost but her legacy remained nonetheless intact.