Elizabeth’s ascension to the throne in 1558 was undoubtedly fraught with a myriad of doubts regarding her gender. Women at that time were considered unfit for sovereign rule and there was significant pressure for her to relinquish power to a suitable male partner. Despite this she enjoyed a lengthy and relatively prosperous rule, and lives on as one of the most celebrated monarchs in English history. This essay examines her use of propaganda to bypass gender biases to demonstrate her legitimacy and royal authority. It analyzes her rhetoric strategy and iconography to understand how Elizabeth was viewed by the public. In recent times, there has been significant controversy surrounding the extent Elizabeth had in controlling her image (Doran and Freeman 2017, #). Convincing arguments have been brought forth that her public-image was either fashioned entirely by herself or simply the creation of a collective of artists. Regardless, the sources available to us serve as a small insight into what led to her success as a monarch.This essay operates on the assumption that Elizabeth’s persona was crafted in large part by herself.

The general consensus in England was that women were weak and soft, two traits that seemed counterintuitive to a strong monarchy. Furthermore, the Spanish empire was a constant threat and the worry was that Elizabeth did not have the stomach to repel the invaders. Elizabeth would have understood this and in turn framed her decision-making in a manner that would play into these stereotypes to receive the support from her people. Whereas it was conventional for rulers to exercise force and coercion to bend subjects to their will, Elizabeth demonstrated a use of soft power, often adopting a less dominating stance when it came to addressing them. In response to the the commons’ Petition that she marry, Elizabeth announced:

“The weight and greatness of this matter might cause in me, being a woman wanting both wit and memory, some fear to speak and bashfulness besides, a thing appropriate to my sex.” (I 2002, 70)

Through this statement Elizabeth exposes her vulnerabilities by openly admitting that which hinders her as a woman. Exhibiting humility in the face of a particularly sensitive subject matter, she acknowledges the commons’ genuine concern of the country’s and her wellbeing.

By doing so, she is able to instil a sense of empathy within her audience, giving them the sense that their voices have been heard, thereby establishing a soft power over them and encouraging receptiveness to her own decisions. Another instance of this is her speech in 1593 addressing a less popular defensive foreign policy.

“I acknowledge my womanhood and weakness in that respect, but it hath not been fear to obtain or doubt how to keep thing so obtained that hath withholden me from these attempts; only, my mind was never to invade my neighbors, nor to usurp upon any, only contented to reign over my own and to rule as a just prince.” (I 2002, 329)

Like before, Elizabeth admits to her own shortcomings as a woman, this time expressing that the idea of aggression and seizing land had simply never occurred to her. She goes on to explain that the defensive policy was made in consideration of her people, and to ensure their wellbeing. Through this, we see how Elizabeth masterfully spins a narrative around a particular point of contention. Her royal authority was hence established not by forcing the people into submission, nor making popular decisions that would please them. Through her effective propaganda, she was able to appease her subjects and weaken their resolve to potentially rise up against her through clever wording of statements. 

Another clever way in which Elizabeth circumvented issues surrounding her gender was by leveraging the roles women typically played within society to accentuate her right to be on the throne. This worked in conjunction with her non-confrontational approach when communicating with her subjects allowing her to assert a soft power upon them. Understanding the association of women with maternal care, she would frame her decisions as made out of motherly love and affection, and through speech and imagery, compared herself to prominent maternal figures. In her answer to the commons’ petition that she marry, Elizabeth ends it by stating: 

“And so I assure you all that though after my death you may have many stepdames, yet shall you never have any a more mother than I mean to be unto you all” (I 2002, 72)

The language is purposeful, with Elizabeth referring to herself as a mother to induce a greater emotional connection as compared to  “stepdames”. From this we can observe Elizabeth professing her care and dedication to her people, even declaring it unsurpassable by any future generations of queens or consorts. Within Christianity, Christ is often compared to a pelican to show his self-sacrifice and as an allegory of his crucifixion. The symbol arises from a legend that a mother pelican would so love its young that in times of starvation, hurt itself and nourish them with its own blood. (“The Phoenix and the Pelican: two portraits of Elizabeth I, c.1575”, n.d.) Elizabeth herself was particularly fond of this symbol and drew upon its message in the Pelican Portrait, an oil painting attributed to Nicholas Hiliard. Within it, the eponymous pelican rests as a pendant on Elizabeth’s breast expressing her unrequited love of her people.

With one of the central figures within Christianity being the Virgin Mary, chastity was seen as a desirable trait during early modern England. The association of chastity with purity and virtue however, stretches beyond the teachings of one religion and this synonymy was employed widely by Queen Elizabeth. Her image as a virgin queen allowed her to distinguish herself from other women, giving the people reason to trust her over others. On a more practical level, being vulnerable to sexual advances could have also meant being tempted to act in ways adverse to the wellbeing of her people, especially when it came to foreign suitors with their own agendas. For this reason there is a widespread celebration of her chastity within writing and iconography with obvious references to prominent virgin icons within Christianity and mythology. 

Rather than simply professing her virginity to spark admiration from the masses, she utilized it to illuminate various crucial aspects of her personage. Her virginity was used as evidence of her divine abilities, through the Plimpton Sieve Portrait dated 1579, where Elizabeth holds a sieve in her left hand. The story goes that a Roman Vestal Virgin named Tuccia was accused of having lost her virginity, forcing her to prove otherwise in order to save her life. To do this, she employed a sieve to transport water from the Tiber river to the Temple of Vesta hence demonstrating her magical powers and innocence (Montrose 2006, 125). The creation of artworks that mirrored this story would have definitely granted credence to the idea that Elizabeth possessed divine abilities and powers beyond the average human. Virginity is also utilized by Elizabeth to express dignity and authority, in the painting “Elizabeth 1 and the Three Goddesses”. The original story goes that a beauty contest between the three goddesses is organized after an apple inscribed “To the fairest one” is thrown into a wedding reception. Elizabeth is superimposed into the event, storming into the contest and “Queen Juno took flight. Pallas was silenced. Venus blushed for shame.” (Forster 1969, 129-6). Her chastity is highlighted through the stark contrast in clothing, with Elizabeth clad head to toe in a thick black dress as compared to the suggestive, skin-hugging togas worn by Athena and Juno or the completely naked Venus.  Juno even drops a staff as she flees, symbolically granting the right to sovereign rule to Elizabeth. The painting is a proud declaration of Elizabeth’s strength and influence through triumphing over three iconic deities within the Greek/Roman pantheon. 

There was great discussion surrounding Elizabeth’s seat at the head of the Church of England. God had after all created Eve after Adam, and religious authority had primarily been bestowed upon men up until that point. Biblical sources such as Saint Paul even advise that: “… not a woman to teach, neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Through more ways than one Elizabeth was able to establish her legitimacy in religion within England and assert herself as a religious authority. Elizabeth had a purposeful rhetoric strategy in her addresses, and frequently referred to herself as God’s instrument. 

“It hath pleased God … to make me an instrument of His holy will in delivering the state from danger and myself from dishonour, all that I challenge to myself is that I have been studious and industrious, in confidence of His grace and goodness, as a careful head to defend the body.” (I 2002, 347)

First and foremost, this speech serves as a way for Elizabeth to demonstrate her devotion towards her religion. Through it, she also establishes that her seat at the head of state was decided upon the will of the divine creator, subtly hinting that decisions made by her were ordained in some magnitude by God himself. At the same time she never claims to make decisions for God himself, distinguishing her role as a mere interpreter of his powerful word. In this regard, she is simultaneously able to display a level of humbleness and gratefulness yet imbue her words with an air of gravitas. During her first speech as Queen, Elizabeth states that:

“And as I am but one body naturally considered, through by His permission a body politic to govern so I shall desire you all, my lords…to be assistant to me, that I with my ruling and you with your service may make a good account to almighty God…” (I 2002, 52)

Through her reference to the concept of the body politic she defines her personage as comprising two distinct entities: a fragile mortal body and a transcendental soul of the monarch. This can be seen as a method of circumventing the rule of a male head of church. Up to no one’s decision but God’s, Elizabeth has been presented the seat at the head of church, and all that she asks is collaboration from her subjects to carry out His work. 

This essay has established that Elizabeth’s royal authority was created based on a fundamental understanding of her weaknesses and turning them into strengths. It hopes to be in line with the significant body of literature which claim Elizabeth’s rule differed mostly in style rather than substance. (“Did Elizabeth’s Gender Really Matter?” 2017, #) Understanding the gender expectations that were ingrained within the public consciousness, Elizabeth’s persona was crafted purposefully to allow her the same royal authority enjoyed by her predecessors. Her success as a ruler is contrasted with the relatively tumultuous rule of her two immediate successors leading to the English civil war. Despite using the same rhetorical strategies, James was unable to capture Elizabeth’s successes. This lends further credence to the idea that biases towards her gender did little to hinder her influence.

References

“Did Elizabeth’s Gender Really Matter?” 2017. In Queens Matter in Early Modern Studies, edited by Anna R. Bertolet. N.p.: Springer International Publishing.

Doran, Susan, and Thomas S. Freeman. 2017. The Myth of Elizabeth. Edited by Susan Doran and Thomas S. Freeman. N.p.: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Forster, Leonard. 1969. The Icy Fire: Five Studies in European Petrarchism. N.p.: Cambridge University Press.

I, Elizabeth. 2002. Elizabeth I: Collected Works. Edited by Leah S. Marcus, Janel Mueller, and Mary B. Rose. N.p.: University of Chicago Press.

Montrose, Louis. 2006. The Subject of Elizabeth: Authority, Gender, and Representation. N.p.: University of Chicago Press.

“The Phoenix and the Pelican: two portraits of Elizabeth I, c.1575.” n.d. National Portrait Gallery. Accessed 3 20, 2025. https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/research/programmes/making-art-in-tudor-britain/the-phoenix-and-the-pelican-two-portraits-of-elizabeth-i-c.1575.