This portrait
of Queen Elizabeth I, painted towards the end of her reign in the 1590s,
epitomises the unrestrained flamboyance that dominated her later iconography.

By this date,
Elizabeth was acutely aware of the power of portraiture and deployed it with
increasing sophistication to project an image of authority. These later
portraits are marked by their opulence, standing in marked contrast to the
restraint of those produced earlier in her rule. Among these later works, two
works stand out for their exceptional scale and theatricality: the ‘Ditchley’
portrait by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, and the ‘Armada’ portrait. In both, 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. Such images convey a carefully
constructed vision of power and stability. At a moment when the question of
succession remained unresolved, the figure of Gloriana, resplendent in imposing
costume and jewels, stood firm.

The artist or
workshop that painted the present work was evidently well versed in this
established visual language, producing an image designed to impress and to
affirm loyalty. In keeping with the prevailing idiom of Elizabeth’s later
portraiture, the costume dominates the composition, its surface richly worked
with colour and detail.[1] Elizabeth is presented
wearing a large open-set standing ruff arranged in large figures of eight,
which lends an ethereal quality. This effect is enhanced by the gauze ‘rail’
that hangs behind, framing the queen in a manner typical of 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 alludes to dynastic unity, while honeysuckle and acorns, associated
with love and growth, are motifs linked to the personal iconography of Elizabeth’s
parents, Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.[2] These forms recur across
the stomacher and skirt, which are densely embroidered in gold thread. At the
centre of the stomacher, a naturalistic rose appears to grow upward, while more
stylised roses, honeysuckle and birds are arranged in couched gold across the
skirt. The birds may evoke the falcon badge of Anne Boleyn, though they may
equally allude more broadly to themes of motherhood, abundance and Elizabeth’s
role of protector of the kingdom.

The queen’s
jewellery plays an equally significant role within the composition. Most
prominent is the long string of pearls worn around the neck, which the queen
delicately holds between the thumb and ring finger of her right hand. Pearls, long
associated with purity and virginity, feature insistently in her later
portraits, hung around the neck, woven into the hair, and worn at the ears.
Around Elizabeth’s neck hangs a distinctive jewel composed of a large
square-cut diamond flanked by two figures and terminating in a pendant pearl. It
appears to be based on ‘The Mirror of France’, the same jewel which appears in
the ‘Clopton’ portrait,
suggesting the repetition of specific items of royal jewellery across multiple
portraits.

Elizabeth did
not sit for the many contemporary portraits of her that survive, but
nevertheless attempted to control their dissemination. 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.

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, Fashion Historian, for her assistance when
researching the costume.

[2] Eric
Ives, (2004) The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Hoboken:
Wiley-Blackwell, p.243.