Why did writers in Elizabethan England face risks when writing truthful accounts of political figures?

In Elizabethan England, writers faced significant risks when documenting the lives of political figures because of the dangerous proximity between historical truth and the monarch's favor. The prevailing political climate was defined by the principle Indignatio principis mors est—"the Prince’s anger is death"—meaning that any account perceived as critical or subversive could lead to severe retribution.1

Sir Walter Raleigh famously articulated this peril in his History of the World, warning that "whosoever, in writing a modern history, shall follow truth too near the heels, it may haply strike out his teeth". This was not merely a theoretical concern; for example, Sir John Hayward was imprisoned in the Tower of London after his 1599 account of the deposition of Richard II offended Queen Elizabeth I, despite the events having occurred two centuries prior.1

Because the Tudor government relied on an authoritarian social structure and the careful management of public opinion, writers often avoided biographical risks, contributing to a period that was notably barren of significant, truthful biography.1