Queen Elizabeth I’s reputation for a volatile temper may have been deliberately exaggerated by her advisers, according to new research examining the correspondence attributed to the monarch. While Elizabeth was known for her fiery mood, historians have long relied on a small subset of letters written in the queen’s own hand, overlooking the thousands penned by her secretaries and advisors.

Clodagh Murphy, a doctoral researcher at Leiden University, analyzed 550 letters sent between Elizabeth and other key figures, including her cousin and rival Mary, Queen of Scots. Murphy found that much of the emotional tone in these letters—ranging from anger to conciliatory warmth—was shaped or altered by Elizabeth’s chief secretary and spymaster, Sir Francis Walsingham.

Walsingham, who managed an extensive intelligence network across Europe to counter Catholic plots against the English crown, appears to have strategically edited Elizabeth’s letters for political effect. In several instances, he amplified the queen’s fierceness to intimidate or exert pressure. Conversely, in the correspondence with Mary, Walsingham softened Elizabeth’s tone or inserted phrases expressing friendship and a desire for reconciliation, likely as part of a calculated diplomatic approach.

One notable example involves a 1584 letter addressed to Sir Ralph Sadler, Mary’s custodian. The letter expressed a wish for “a thorough reconciliation” between the two queens. Historian John Guy had previously characterized the letter as a rare moment revealing Elizabeth’s genuine emotional openness. However, Murphy’s analysis of draft versions reveals that much of this conciliatory language was added by Walsingham, suggesting that Elizabeth may not have been as forthcoming as the final letter implied.

Elizabeth’s letters written in her own hand—approximately 100 out of more than 3,000 surviving documents—have traditionally received greater scholarly attention. Murphy argues that this focus has overshadowed the important role of her advisers in shaping the monarch’s public persona through correspondence. The more formal and impersonal letters were often delegated to secretaries, while Elizabeth was usually directly involved in those with significant political implications or personal importance.

This research sheds new light on the management of Elizabeth’s image and diplomatic communications, demonstrating how her advisers may have manipulated perceptions of her temperament and intentions to serve the political needs of the English monarchy during a turbulent period in European history.