Do you believe Elizabeth ruled as Machiavelli recommended. Why or why not?

Abstract
To contribute to contemporary debates about the human self, historical constitutedness and capacity for critical agency, I turn to Niccolò Machiavelli's account of human virtuosity. There I retrieve a vision of political action that centres on a critically conscious intelligence or 'I' engaged in the continual fracturing and manipulation of identity. Machiavelli shows this critical intelligence to be something developed by way of a mental standpoint I call critical in-betweenness — a disposition that imperfectly enables positive political innovation. To account for what proves to be a non-modernist Machiavellian view of a multiplicitous and capacious self, I turn to one of Machiavelli's ancient influences, Cicero, and his theory of four personae. I then further illuminate such virtuoso capacities for political innovation by way of a case study, Elizabeth Tudor of England. Finally, I briefly link this discussion to late/post-modern political and social theory, and to issues of democratic citizenship and education.

Journal Information
History of Political Thought (HPT) is a quarterly journal which was launched in 1980 to fill a genuine academic need for a forum for work in this multidisciplinary area. Although a subject central to the study of politics and history, researchers in this field had previously to compete for publication space in journals whose intellectual centres of gravity were located in other disciplines.

If you make it more clear i can answer it