The Myth of Elizabeth I – A Lecture by Professor Lucy Wooding (Oxford University)
I recently attended a lecture by Professor Lucy Wooding of Oxford University on “The Myth of Elizabeth I.” The central argument was that the traditional image of Elizabeth I as a stable and idealised monarch is largely a constructed myth, shaped both by Tudor self-representation and later historical interpretation.
One of the most striking points was the emphasis on Tudor imagery as political communication. Elizabeth in particular was deliberately portrayed as a semi-divine figure through portraiture and symbolism. Features such as embroidered eyes and ears suggested an all-seeing, all-hearing monarch, while later images such as the Armada portrait reinforced ideas of divine favour and imperial authority. Taken together, these representations project an impression of control and stability in a context that was in reality politically and religiously fragile.
The lecture also situated this construction within historiography, particularly the work of J. E. Neale. Neale’s interpretation of Elizabeth as a ruler who avoided extremes and maintained balance was presented as highly influential in shaping a more idealised view of her reign. It also raised the broader point that historical interpretations often reflect the context in which they are written, as much as the period they describe. In Neale’s case, the Cold War emphasis on stability and moderation may have shaped his reading of Elizabeth’s political role.
A key example discussed was the Armada portrait. While it presents Elizabeth as symbolically dominant over Spain, the lecture encouraged a more critical reading of the historical reality behind it. Although the defeat of the Spanish Armada is often associated with English naval superiority, weather is widely recognised as an important factor. However, the outcome is generally understood as multi-causal, involving English naval tactics, Spanish logistical weaknesses, and earlier strategic decisions such as Drake’s raid on Cádiz. This highlighted how visual or symbolic representations can simplify events that were in reality the result of multiple interacting causes.
The lecture also emphasised the fragility of Elizabeth’s early reign. In 1558, England remained deeply divided by religion, with Catholicism still strongly embedded in many regions. Elizabeth’s decision not to marry, alongside ongoing concerns over legitimacy and succession, further heightened political uncertainty. Comparing portraits from the reigns of Elizabeth I and Mary I also illustrated how royal imagery shifted in response to insecurity, with presentation becoming a tool of authority rather than a reflection of stability.
Religion was another central theme. The distinction between Protestant and Catholic identity in the sixteenth century was still developing, meaning that Elizabeth’s religious settlement did not immediately resolve division. This helps explain the increasing use of allegorical imagery in later portraits, where she is shown alongside figures such as Peace and Plenty to project harmony that may not fully reflect political reality.
Gender also formed an underlying structural constraint. Contemporary beliefs about female rule, influenced in part by humoral theory, cast doubt on women’s suitability for sovereignty. This context helps explain why Elizabeth’s authority had to be continuously reinforced through image, performance, and political control.
One reflection I took from the lecture concerns the explanation of the Spanish Armada’s failure. While weather is clearly significant, it is usually treated by historians as one factor within a wider combination of causes rather than a sole explanation. Thinking about it in these terms highlighted how historical interpretation depends on whether emphasis is placed on single causes or on the interaction of multiple factors, and how this choice can shape the way events are understood.
Overall, the lecture was effective in challenging the idea of Elizabeth I as a consistently stable ruler. Instead, it presented her as operating within a context of political fragility, religious uncertainty, and gendered expectation, where image-making played a central role in sustaining authority. It also reinforced the importance of considering not only what historical figures did, but how their actions are later represented, interpreted, and turned into enduring narratives.