To view all current artworks for sale visit philipmould.com

This monumental image of Queen Elizabeth I was painted towards the end of her reign in the 1590s and epitomises the unrestrained flamboyance that dominated her later iconography.

Elizabeth was acutely aware of the power of portraiture and used it shrewdly in the later years of her reign to project an image of strength and authority. These later portraits are characterised by their opulence and stand in stark contrast to those at the start of her reign which show far greater restraint. Of these later portraits, two in particular stand out for their unrivalled splendour and visual theatrics; the ‘Ditchley’ portrait by Marcus Gheeraerts the younger, and the ‘Armada’ portrait. In both portraits Elizabeth is shown as an icon and saviour of England, her powerful position as head of state transcending her body of ageing flesh and bones. They suggest ambition and energy, and as the question of succession raged on, the Gloriana, with her imposing costumes and expensive jewels, stood firm.

The artist or workshop that painted the present work was evidently well versed in the Queen’s imagery and presents a visual feast to adorn the wall of any loyal subject. As would be expected, Elizabeth’s costume dominates the composition and is saturated with colour and detail.[1] Elizabeth is presented wearing a large open-set standing ruff arranged in large figures of eight which give it an ethereal feel. This effect is enhanced by the gauze ‘rail’ that hangs behind, framing the queen in a manner typical in her later large-scale portraits. The broad red sleeves of the gown are split to reveal a pair of white silk sleeves embellished with floral forms, including Tudor roses interspersed with acorns and honeysuckle. Each motif is symbolic of Elizabeth’s lineage and authority. The Tudor rose refers to the unity of the Tudor dynasty, whilst honeysuckle and acorns, symbolic of love and growth, formed a motif that was adopted privately between Elizabeth’s parents Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.[2] The honeysuckle and Tudor roses continue throughout the stomacher and skirt which are heavily embroidered in gold. A naturalistic rose appears to grow up at the centre of the stomacher, whilst more stylised roses, honeysuckle and birds appear in couched gold segments on the skirt. The birds may possibly be a reference to the ‘falcon’ badge of her mother, Anne, but may equally refer to themes of motherhood, abundance and Elizabeth’s role of protector of the kingdom.

The queen’s jewellery is also worth noting. Its purpose was not only to dazzle and impress the viewer, but also to repeat the themes of love, loyalty and devotion which dominated Elizabeth’s imagery at this date. The most conspicuous item of jewellery is the long string of pearls worn around the neck which the queen gently holds between the thumb and ring finger on the right hand. Pearls, symbolic of purity and virginity, feature prominently in Elizabeth’s later portraits and were worn on her costume as well as in her hair and on the ears. Around Elizabeth’s neck we see a distinctive jewel of a large square-cut diamond flanked by two figures with a pendant pearl. The same jewel can be observed in the so-called ‘Sieve’ portrait as well as in several other portraits painted in the 1580s and early 1590s.

Elizabeth did not sit for the many contemporary portraits of her that survive, but nevertheless attempted to control their dissemination. In 1563 a draft proclamation was drawn up to try and prevent the circulation of sub-standard portraits of the Queen, and later in 1596 a further attempt was made by the Privy Council to encourage the destruction of unofficial images.[3]

One way to regulate the Queen’s image was through the circulation of approved head designs (or ‘patterns’) which could then be drawn or traced by the artist as is likely to have been done here. Once the head had been drawn, the artist would then either imagine the costume or work from further patterns, embellishing it with a level of detail corresponding to the depth of their patron’s pocket. Only a small number of original face patterns from the Tudor period have survived, but one of John Fisher and another of a lady thought to be Elizabeth I can be found in the National Portrait Gallery, London.
As well as a pattern for the face, the artist of the present work also relied on patterns for the hands. Indeed, the same hand holding a glove also appears in another portrait of Elizabeth painted around the same date. It is tempting to infer from this that the latter portrait and the present work were painted by the same artist or at least within the same workshop; however, due to the increase demand for Elizabeth’s image in the 1580s and 1590s, multiple workshops were producing portraits and appear to have worked from the same (or at least similar) patterns and drawings.[4]

The queen’s likeness in this portrait derives from the ‘Darnley’ portrait of c. 1575, which was the most widely used pattern until the Ditchley portrait was painted in 1592. This would seem to correspond with recent dendrochronological analysis (tree-ring dating) of the oak panel, which suggests an earliest possible creation date of between c. 1591–1597.
Other technologies have also proved beneficial in attempting to establish how this work was created. Infrared reflectography, for example, allows us to see beneath the paint surface and study the underdrawing initially laid down by the artist before they applied the paint. It is clear from the image of the head that the artist the took great care in defining the facial features and contours of the head. The same attention is evident in the drawing of the hands with each of the long, elegant fingers delineated with considerable exactitude. There is little evidence of underdrawing elsewhere within the composition and the costume and jewellery appear to have been painted freehand.

The present work was formerly in the possession of the Misses Marjorie Edith and Cecilia Mary Blencowe of Marston House, Banbury, Oxfordshire. The Blencowe family have a long and illustrious heritage and had been at Marston since the reign of Henry VI. Later generations of the family were actively involved in politics and Anthony Blencowe was provost of Oriel College, Oxford between 1572 and 1618. His portrait, painted by an unknown hand in 1601, is in the art collection at Oriel College. In the early twentieth century Marston House and its contents were put up for sale. The family appear to have retained the estate and the present work passed into the possession of the aforementioned two sisters and was then sold at auction in 1954 with the remainder of their art collection.

[1] We are grateful to Jacqui Ansell, Senior Lecturer Christie’s Education, for her assistance when researching the costume.
[2] Ives, E. (2004) The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, p.243.
[3] Strong, R. (1987) Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 14–15.
[4] See: Strong, (1987). ‘Portraits from an Elizabethan Workshop’, Gloriana. pp. 117–119. Strong groups together six works which he suggests were all painted within the same studio based on compositional similarities. It is equally possible that they were painted in separate studios using shared patterns.