1

John Kings Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen and Susan Dorans
Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Elizabeth I

The Cult of the Virgin Queen is a term first used by Roy Strong, describing the supposed
propaganda image of Elizabeth I as an unattainable, goddess-like queen who renounced
marriage to remain pure a figure comparable with the Madonna and the goddess
Cynthia/Diana.1 Since its origins there has been much written by scholars to better
understand how the image of Elizabeth was cultivated, if indeed it existed at all in the way
that Strong claimed. This essay will focus on two essays: Kings article from 1990, Queen
Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, and a chapter from The Myth of Elizabeth
by Susan Doran from 2003, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Elizabeth I. Both
writers make an important contribution to the study of Elizabeths image, and though they
each present different arguments (and for different purposes) King and Doran agree that
the initial concept of the Cult had deep flaws. Both articles attempt to revise the scholarly
perception of Elizabeth I, with Kings work throwing more light on how the image of the
queen changed to deal with different circumstances and Doran challenging the assumption
that there was a Cult at all. Dorans claims are obviously more revolutionary but are equally
supported with an alternative explanation of Elizabethan image and propaganda.
I will begin this essay by outlining the arguments of King and Doran, as well as the purposes
behind their work. Next, I will examine how Kings background as a literary historian may
have affected his work, as well as whether or not Dorans predilection for political and
religious history had any impact on her essay. Finally, I will evaluate the value of the two
articles to the scholarship surrounding the Cult: King and Doran both provide solid
contributions to the study of Elizabeth but despite excellent reviews of Dorans research
Kings article seems to have been of more importance. There is no doubt that the Cult of the
Virgin Queen needed further research and qualification, and this essay will explore how King
and Doran have tried to change the way the Cult is perceived.

J. King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, 43, 1 (1990), pp. 3074, p. 30

As Kings article predates Dorans by over a decade, and as Dorans work was quite probably
shaped to a degree by Kings subsequent influence on the field, the arguments contained
within Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen will be looked at first.
Kings main argument is that the image of Elizabeth I changed during her reign to reflect
different circumstances and crises.2 Whilst it is true that Elizabeth was portrayed as virginal
practically throughout her time as queen, King points out that the way in which virginity is
portrayed and the methods with which the queen is associated with her maidenhood vary
greatly at different points in the period. In the early part of her reign, until roughly 1580,
Elizabeth is usually portrayed as a nubile, attractive maiden who was eligible for marriage,
whereas after 1580 the queen becomes an eternal virgin ever youthful and attractive, and
entirely unattainable.3 The reasons behind this shift in propaganda are apparent: Elizabeth
needed to seek a consort because of pressures from the government and the public to
establish a line of succession, but when in 1580 marriage negotiations with the duke of
Anjou failed and it became clear that Elizabeth was probably too old to reproduce the royal
court turned the issue into a propaganda asset by claiming that Elizabeth was a perpetual
figure of power, virginity and beauty.4 As Elizabeth grew older it became necessary to
portray her as less human and more like a goddess to quieten fears about her death and the
succession issue, so the queen was increasingly compared to the goddess Cynthia to
represent her virginity, her unattainable beauty and also her command of great power,
particularly at sea with the British navy.5 The Cult of the Virgin Queen in its true sense only
appeared when it became advantageous to present Elizabeth as an unattainable virgin
rather than an eligible one.6 It may seem fairly obvious that the image of the monarch
changed to suit different circumstances other scholars including Helen Hackett have
commented in a similar manner on royal propaganda but King was writing specifically to
challenge the general assumption of historians at the time that Elizabeth vowed early in her
2

J. King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, 43, 1 (1990),
pp. 30-74, p. 32
3

Ibid., p. 32
Ibid., p. 41
Ibid., p. 58
5
Ibid., p. 59
6
Ibid., p. 51
4

reign to remain a virgin until her death.7 According to King this assumption is based on the
writings of William Camden, who wrote about Elizabeth after her death, and King spends
considerable time in his article debunking Camdens claims.8 King highlights Camdens
biased approach and his lack of citations and uses contemporary records to argue against
the existence of any vow of virginity taken by the queen early in her reign, and makes the
convincing claim that Camdens idealization of Elizabeth was a result of his distaste for the
Jacobean court.9
Kings purpose in writing his article seems to have been inextricably linked to his argument:
in writing about how the image of Elizabeth changed over time King is able to dispel the
Camden myth that Elizabeth aimed to remain a virgin forever. Now Dorans essay should be
examined in the same way, with a discussion of the writers arguments and of the ultimate
purpose behind the essay itself.
In some ways, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Elizabeth I appears to build on
Kings conclusions: Doran agrees that the propagated image of Elizabeth changed during her
reign according to different circumstances and sees the marriage negotiations of 1580 as a
critical point for the queens presentation as a Virgin Queen.10 However, where Doran
differs from King is of most interest she claims that the Cult of the Virgin Queen is an
inappropriate way to talk about Elizabeth I and that there was no orchestrated effort to
portray Elizabeth as the Virgin Queen at any point during her reign.11 King believed that the
Virgin Queen image was propagated by the royal court and that it was accepted by the
public Doran completely dismisses this idea and instead argues that the royal image was
rarely seen by the masses except on coins, and that the monarch had no system in place by
which they could control artwork.12 According to Doran, Elizabeth was portrayed in a variety
of ways with virginity being only one aspect albeit one that became more prevalent after
7

H. Hackett, Dreams or Designs, Cults or Constructions? The Study of Images of Monarchs, The Historical
Journal, 44, 3 (September, 2001), pp. 811-823, p. 811
King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, pp. 31-32
8
Ibid., p. 33
9
Ibid., pp. 35-37
Ibid., p. 69
10
S. Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, in S. Doran and T. Freedman
(eds.) The Myth of Elizabeth (2003), pp. 171-199, p. 191
11
Ibid., p. 191
12
King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, p. 51
Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, p. 191

the failed Anjou marriage negotiations and Elizabeth usually chose to have herself
portrayed as a Protestant ruler when she patronized paintings.13 In another article, Doran
even claims that the Cult was forced upon the queen in 1580 when detractors praised
virginity to covertly criticise her potential marriage.14 Furthermore, Doran disagrees with the
use of the word Cult to describe Elizabeths virginal representation: not only because
there was no orchestrated effort to cultivate such an image, nor because there was no
spontaneous uprising to support the Virgin Queen ultimately the positive portrayal of
virginity was not an Elizabethan phenomenon but has been seen throughout Europe and
from a time before Elizabeth took the throne.15 Cult implies a unique or unusual event,
but Doran claims that there was nothing unique or unusual about the symbols and
iconography used to represent Elizabeth I.16
The purpose of Dorans essay, entirely within keeping of the title of the collection, appears
to have been to criticise the myth that Elizabeth formed her own image as the Virgin Queen
and to condemn the idea of a Cult altogether by showing how Elizabethan iconography was
neither original nor strictly virginal. Both King and Doran seem to have written to
demythologize the Cult of the Virgin Queen, but to very different extents: where King
sought to qualify the Cult, Doran tries to overthrow it. The degree to which the two essays
succeeded in their aims will be looked at later when their respective academic impact is
discussed, but first the methodologies and theoretical approaches of King and Doran will be
examined.

13

Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, p. 192
Ibid., p. 172
14
S. Doran, Juno versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I's Marriage in Plays and Entertainments, 15611581, The Historical Journal, 38, 2 (June, 1995), pp. 257-274, p. 274
15
Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, p. 193
16
Ibid., p. 193

In this section, the influences on both King and Doran will be explored through their work,
so that any possible biases can be found and so that their essays can be evaluated more
accurately. The respective methodologies used by King and Doran in their essays should be
identified, as should the particular academic foci of the two historians.

King describes his article as a review of contemporary manuscripts, printed books, and
artistic works.17 This assessment is fairly accurate, as King does indeed look to records,
portraits, dramatic performances and their scripts, and various forms of literature to
support his argument. On this basis it seems reasonable to assume that King can be
considered to base his research on a literary methodology, focusing primarily on written
evidence though he uses several images in the essay the bulk of Kings arguments are
based on literary evidence. It would be unfair though to criticize King too harshly for this
emphasis: Elizabeths representation in literature is important to understanding her
portrayal as the Virgin Queen, and written records reveal useful evidence a record of
Elizabeths speech that was previously thought to include a vow of virginity helped King to
prove that Camden had falsified his records.18 Not only that, but King does pay attention to
the representation of Elizabeth in imagery and artwork it is not the focus of his essay, but
he does not entirely neglect it either and uses it with written sources to form his arguments.
As for Kings theoretical standpoint, the heavy emphasis on literature as well as on artwork
and the theatre would suggest that King is a cultural historian primarily interested in
studying cultural developments in history. In his article, King discusses a large number of
plays, portraits and literature in terms of their symbolic meanings, including the Coronation
Portrait, the performance of Gorboduc and The Princely Pleasures at Kenelworth Castle.19
There can be little doubt that the Cult of the Virgin Queen is part of British cultural history,
and Kings focus on Elizabethan culture aids his exploration of how Elizabeth I was
represented at the time. However, Kings emphasis on culture may have hindered his work
considerably by looking too deeply at culture King may have ignored more revolutionary
and equally important elements. It is possible that only Doran came to the conclusion that
17

King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, p. 32

Ibid., p. 37
19
Ibid., pp. 41-45
18

there was no public Cult because King focused and believed in the image of Elizabeth shown
through artistic culture. As Hackett and Doran point out, the imagery used to portray
Elizabeth may not have been how the public saw her: the exalted representation of the
queen could have been used to cover up dissent.20 Despite this, King should not be unfairly
criticized: the Cult as it was claimed to be was an important cultural feature, and King was
justified in pursuing it as such.
In Dorans essay, the focus is given to the different images representing Elizabeth I though
the text accompanying the imagery is sometimes analysed as well. As Doran states early on,
the essay looks at the queens visual representation in order to show that there were many
possible meanings and symbols within Elizabethan iconography.21 Dorans sources include
the title pages from Acts and Monuments (1563) and the Bishops Bible (1568), Elizabeth I
and the Three Goddesses (1569), and The Monument of Matrones (1582).22 As with King, her
methodological focus is appropriate to her topic: the essay is about the different ways
Elizabeth was portrayed through imagery and so a study of various forms of artwork is
entirely suitable. It is true that a wider variety of sources could provide a more balanced
answer in other areas, but when looking specifically at the Virgin Queen in images a focus
on images is hardly a fault. In an earlier essay already mentioned, Doran follows a similar
pattern focusing on dramatic entertainments almost entirely to examine Elizabeths
portrayal in productions by the Inns of the Court and in popular pageantry. 23 This approach
to the study of the Cult may appear narrow in individual essays but they provide specific and
more detailed information than more general works.
Doran, despite the heavy focus on artwork and iconography in her essay, is not a cultural
historian like King but instead appears to be more interested in political and religious
history. A large part of Dorans essay looks at how Elizabeth was portrayed as a Protestant
ruler through images and by using religious iconography, and at how symbols usually taken

20

Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, pp. 191-193
Hackett, Dreams or Designs, Cults or Constructions? The Study of Images of Monarchs, The Historical Journal,
p. 822
21
Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, p. 172
22
Ibid., pp. 172-175
Ibid., p. 181
23
Doran, Juno versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I's Marriage in Plays and Entertainments, 1561-1581,
The Historical Journal, p. 257

to represent the Virgin Mary can be interpreted in a variety of ways.24 The essay also
discusses how political circumstances affected Elizabeths representation and how different
aspects of the queen could be explained by political motives: the Spanish threat and the
worries about succession leading to the impenetrable image of Elizabeth as an imperial
ruler and to the mask of youth, for example.25 Unlike King, Doran appears to have used
knowledge of Elizabethan culture without having to focus entirely on it and has used it to
justify an argument that not only looks at Elizabethan artistic culture but also at religious
and political concerns for the queen, and how they all affected the concept of the Cult of
the Virgin Queen. However, neither writer appears to have let their personal preferences
unduly compromise the validity of their work.

In terms of relative academic impact, the two essays are fairly equal. Both tackle misleading
scholarly assumptions: King deals with the claim made by Camden that Elizabeth intended
to be a virgin throughout her reign and Doran attempts to demythologize the contemporary
propaganda surrounding Elizabeth I and to disprove the assumption that the Cult of the
Virgin Queen existed as a popular movement or as a royally supported government scheme.
Judging from the evidence presented King provides, his argument against Camden is wellfounded: Camdens record supposedly of one of Elizabeths early speeches was shown
by King to have been forged, and Camdens bias against the Jacobeans that led him to write
positively of the Elizabethans in criticism became apparent through Kings arguments.26
Dorans arguments are similarly supported by adequate evidence, making it difficult to
judge which of the two essays is more academically sound. Whilst it would appear that
Dorans conclusions are more revolutionary and therefore perhaps of more importance, it
must be remembered that King wrote his article over a decade before Doran and that Kings
essay may have been equally as radical in 1990 as Dorans essay appears now. In any case,
scholarly essays can only be considered revolutionary if they have an impact on the way that
24

Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, p. 172
Ibid., p. 177
25
Doran, Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, The Myth of Elizabeth, pp. 188-189
26
King, Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance Quarterly, p. 37
Ibid., pp. 67-69

other scholars think it doesnt matter how radical they seem or how well they are
supported but rather how they were received. To examine how much of an impact King and
Doran actually made on the academic world the works of other academics must be looked
at.
Dorans essay has been praised in two academic reviews of The Myth of Elizabeth, being
congratulated as thought-provoking, illuminating historical influences on the Cult and
influences on contemporary perceptions of Elizabeth herself, and as nuanced and
convincing, providing fresh insight into the Cult and for revealing the historical reality
behind the mythology of the Virgin Queen.27 However, Dorans essay is apparently not
referenced elsewhere, and nor is The Myth of Elizabeth. At least seven scholarly articles
have referenced Kings work when discussing Elizabeth I, including an article by Doran
before The Myth of Elizabeth.28 This suggests that Kings article has been read by more
academics than Dorans, and it also makes it appear that Kings article has been far more
influential in the development of Elizabethan scholarship. Although Kings work has not
been reviewed itself, the wide and varied use of the article indicates that it has been
integral to the development of the Cult concept, and also that its conclusions have been
widely accepted at least enough to be noticed and referenced.
That is not to say that Dorans arguments have been rejected because they arent cited by
as many scholars. Kings arguments were accessible to the academic community years
before Dorans and so there has been more time for King to have been receive. The
27

E. Goldring, Review of The Myth of Elizabeth by S. Doran and T. Freedman, Renaissance Quarterly, 57, 3
(2004), pp. 1119-1120, p. 1120
M. De La Torre, Review of The Myth of Elizabeth by S. Doran and T. Freedman, The Journal of British Studies,
44, 3 (2005), pp. 609-611, p. 611
28
D. Clarke, Lover's Songs Shall Turne to Holy Psalmes": Mary Sidney and the Transformation of Petrarch, The
Modern Language Review, 92, 2 (1997), pp. 282-294, p. 284
Doran, Juno versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I's Marriage in Plays and Entertainments, 1561-1581,
The Historical Journal, p. 266
D. Fischlin, Political Allegory, Absolutist Ideology, and the "Rainbow Portrait" of Queen Elizabeth I,
Renaissance Quarterly, 50, 1 (1997), pp. 175-206, p. 184, p. 196
S. Frye, Of Chastity and Violence: Elizabeth I and Edmund Spenser in the House of Busirane,
Signs, 20, 1 (1994), pp. 49-78, p. 53
M. Matchinske, Credible Consorts: What Happens When Shakespeare's Sisters Enter the Syllabus?,
Shakespeare Quarterly, 47, 4 (1996), pp. 433-450, p. 436
L. Montrose, Idols of the Queen: Policy, Gender, and the Picturing of Elizabeth I, Representations, 68 (1999),
pp. 108-161, p. 124
J. Smith, Music and Late Elizabethan Politics: The Identities of Oriana and Diana, Journal of the American
Musicological Society, 58, 3 (2005), pp. 507-558, p. 515

conclusions Doran reached in her essay have only been praised by scholars thus far: there is
no need to assume that Kings article is superior intellectually. However, it is clear that King
has made greater academic impact with his article than Doran has with her essay. Kings
work in dispelling the myth about Elizabeths vow to remain a Virgin Queen forever and in
convincing scholars that Elizabeths image changed to suit different circumstances seems to
have been an important step Dorans essay accepts the belief that the royal image
changed over time as a given. Doran has undoubtedly made a useful contribution to
historical research around the Cult of the Virgin Queen, but her essay has not had the same
impact as Kings.

As this essay has explored, both King and Doran have made useful contributions to the
historians understanding of the Cult of the Virgin Queen and of Elizabeths image more
generally. Both scholars wrote to dispel ignorant myths or assumptions made by past
historians: King aimed to debunk Camden and his claims about Elizabeth, and Doran tried to
eliminate the assumptions that there was royal involvement in portraying the queen as
virginal and that the presentation of Elizabeth as a Virgin Queen was systematic and
original. Whilst King focuses largely on literature and other cultural expressions such as art
and drama perhaps neglecting other important areas of study Doran manages to direct
her efforts at one specific topic and forms a well-rounded essay, with particular emphasis on
politics and religion. However, Kings article seems to have been more influential in the
development of the Cult concept than Dorans, as well as being more widely received and
cited. Overall, both of the essays seem very useful in demythologizing the Cult of the Virgin
Queen and in developing historical understanding of Elizabeth Is image further.

3000 words

10

Bibliography

Clarke, D., Lover's Songs Shall Turne to Holy Psalmes": Mary Sidney and the
Transformation of Petrarch, The Modern Language Review, 92, 2 (1997),
pp. 282-294
De La Torre, M., Review of The Myth of Elizabeth by S. Doran T. Freedman, The
Journal of British Studies, 44, 3 (2005), pp. 609-611
Doran, S., Juno versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I's Marriage in Plays and
Entertainments, 1561-1581, The Historical Journal, 38, 2 (June, 1995), pp. 257-274
Doran, S., Virginity, Divinity and Power: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, in S.
Doran and T. Freedman (eds.) The Myth of Elizabeth (2003), pp. 171-199
Fischlin, D., Political Allegory, Absolutist Ideology, and the "Rainbow Portrait" of
Queen Elizabeth I, Renaissance Quarterly, 50, 1 (1997), pp. 175-206
Frye, S., Of Chastity and Violence: Elizabeth I and Edmund Spenser in the House of
Busirane, Signs, 20, 1 (1994), pp. 49-78
Goldring, E., Review of The Myth of Elizabeth by S. Doran T. Freedman, Renaissance
Quarterly, 57, 3 (2004), pp. 1119-1120
Hackett, H., Dreams or Designs, Cults or Constructions? The Study of Images of
Monarchs, The Historical Journal, 44, 3 (September, 2001), pp. 811-823
King, J., Queen Elizabeth I: Representations of the Virgin Queen, Renaissance
Quarterly, 43, 1 (1990), pp. 30-74
Matchinske, M., Credible Consorts: What Happens When Shakespeare's Sisters
Enter the Syllabus?, Shakespeare Quarterly, 47, 4 (1996), pp. 433-450
Montrose, L., Idols of the Queen: Policy, Gender, and the Picturing of Elizabeth I,
Representations, 68 (1999), pp. 108-161
Smith, J., Music and Late Elizabethan Politics: The Identities of Oriana and Diana,
Journal of the American Musicological Society, 58, 3 (2005), pp. 507-558