The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Original post by Endless Blue
Practice question I thought I'd fire out for everyone's benefit :smile:

Q) How important was foreign policy in Henry VII's consolidation of royal authority in the years 1483-1509? (24 marks)

2(+) points on why it was important and then 3-4 on why it wasn't as important as XYZ.



Important - Could argue cocolidation of power began at bosworth with victory (french support) and Treaties

Not important - Parliament, E of Y, Propangada and Victory against pretenders, namely the battle of stoke.
Original post by LaLady
1485*** xD


Whoops! Better I make a typo/mistake now than tomorrow! :biggrin:
Reply 122
can someone give me an evidence on how wolsey had a good relationship with henry viii?
Original post by johngob
Important - Could argue cocolidation of power began at bosworth with victory (french support) and Treaties

Not important - Parliament, E of Y, Propangada and Victory against pretenders, namely the battle of stoke.


Nice response :smile:

Here's what I got:

Intro - Foreign support/relations had been critical in usurpations etc. in the past (e.g Edward IV, Henry VI and even Henry Tudor himself) so good relations with European powers was obviously critical in any king's success in retaining the throne. But there were also other factors which will be weighed against foreign relations etc.

Important - Intl. recognition of his kingship was important because it strengthened his claim to the throne (-> explain the weak nature of his claim). Foreign powers could also harbour pretenders (e.g Warbeck) so positive relations would ensure that his position on the throne was more secure from challenges
- Also important because foreign relations directly affected the royal finances (through tunnage and poundage) and strong finances were critical in Henry VII being able to put down rebellions and so on.
- Finally, important because of overseas trade -> good foreign relations = better/more secure overseas trade which = more prosperity in England so rebellions less likely (link to prev. point also)

Unimportant because XYZ - controlling nobility more important because...; improving royal finances internally more important than overseas trade- crown lands; Parlt. + local govt. reform etc. arguably more important; " for other areas of his consolidation of power.

Conc - Important but all of these other factors together were more or less equally important so its lone importance is limited.

Sorry it's not great, just trying to get a few ideas in :smile:
Reply 124
Original post by Endless Blue
Practice question I thought I'd fire out for everyone's benefit :smile:

Q) How important was foreign policy in Henry VII's consolidation of royal authority in the years 1483-1509? (24 marks)

2(+) points on why it was important and then 3-4 on why it wasn't as important as XYZ.


Yeah it was pretty important I think




Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LaLady
can someone give me an evidence on how wolsey had a good relationship with henry viii?


In my textbook there's a letter in which Henry writes personally to Wolsey, thanking him, urging him to take some rest and sending a message from the Queen so obviously they were on good terms at this point.
Reply 126
Original post by Endless Blue
Nice response :smile:

Here's what I got:

Intro - Foreign support/relations had been critical in usurpations etc. in the past (e.g Edward IV, Henry VI and even Henry Tudor himself) so good relations with European powers was obviously critical in any king's success in retaining the throne. But there were also other factors which will be weighed against foreign relations etc.

Important - Intl. recognition of his kingship was important because it strengthened his claim to the throne (-> explain the weak nature of his claim). Foreign powers could also harbour pretenders (e.g Warbeck) so positive relations would ensure that his position on the throne was more secure from challenges
- Also important because foreign relations directly affected the royal finances (through tunnage and poundage) and strong finances were critical in Henry VII being able to put down rebellions and so on.
- Finally, important because of overseas trade -> good foreign relations = better/more secure overseas trade which = more prosperity in England so rebellions less likely (link to prev. point also)

Unimportant because XYZ - controlling nobility more important because...; improving royal finances internally more important than overseas trade- crown lands; Parlt. + local govt. reform etc. arguably more important; " for other areas of his consolidation of power.

Conc - Important but all of these other factors together were more or less equally important so its lone importance is limited.

Sorry it's not great, just trying to get a few ideas in :smile:


Yours are even better :smile: I just hope the Q's are bad tommorow, PLEASE GOD!! LOL
Reply 127
Original post by johngob
Yours are even better :smile: I just hope the Q's are bad tommorow, PLEASE GOD!! LOL


I pray to god no lol because i kinda got stuck with the q. i have this phoebia that i wont be able to understand the question tomorrow lol
Reply 128
*Aren't lool my bad
Reply 129
Original post by LaLady
I pray to god no lol because i kinda got stuck with the q. i have this phoebia that i wont be able to understand the question tomorrow lol


Loool you'll be fine just think when you see the Q lool
Good luck everyone tomorrow! :biggrin:

I'm sure we'll all do fine. I know that everyone here (myself included) is worried about a curveball question coming up, but generally they don't tend to so just relax and make sure you've got your exam technique/structure sorted which is crucial!
Reply 131
Thanks Endless Blue! Good luck to everyone! :smile:
Another point is that if they throw a curveball question, virtually everyone will be in the same position so they will tend to be more lenient with a mark scheme, so don't rule one out, especially if the 24 is such a good one. They had one about Empson and Dudley a while back which is an awkward one, doable, but not much to write. So, breathe and just think of reasons, even extend the event to the whole period for some long term points. That's a benefit to link: you cold group/link points to long or short term factors. And prioritise your factors, gets you a strong 10+/12


Posted from TSR Mobile
One more look over my notes and then it's off to bed.

And onto tomorrow!
Reply 134
Original post by LaLady
Don't worry you're not the only one.
I have problem with timing as well, it doesnt give me a chance to think/how to structure my essay or let me explain properly. Probs because my teacher doesn't know how to teach but oh wells lol.

Fingers crossed for Consolidation and Richard haha. Good luck to you all :smile:


Hahaa I swear my teacher can not teach he's very clever just can't pass the information across effectively


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 135
Original post by Nay95
Hahaa I swear my teacher can not teach he's very clever just can't pass the information across effectively


Posted from TSR Mobile


Lol I think thats typical for very clever teachers. All physics teacher in my school are sooo crap lol but they're frickin brainy they have full on talks about space and shizz during their breaks lol.
Reply 136
How was it ???????


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 137
It was ok 1.) Explains why there were rebellions against Richard III
Pretty sure there was only one rebellion which was the Buckingham but I wrote about that
Wrote about the woodvilles
The bad reputation he had e.g killing princes and his wife
Henry Tudor
That's all I could think of.

2.) How successful was Henry VII in consolidating his royal authority in the years 1485 - 1509
Wrote about rebellion, heir, marriage with Elizabeth of York and calling parliament so he could use the act of attainder by backdating his reign.

3.) Was something about intercusus Magnus or malice
4.) How successful was Henry in the overseas trade

5.) Explain why the treaty of London was signed in 1518
I put to making wolsey look better, make henry and England look more prestige, made alliance,

6.) How far was the fall of wolsey due to his foreign policy in 1529?
Kings annulment, the finance (amicable grant), for foreign policy I wrote 2 things: treaty of cambrai and not getting the war with France, he made alliance with them instead of having a war with them.

Meh it was ok I guess hopefully ill get atleast a C
Reply 138
I found it alright, but I ran out of time and rushed the final 2 Qs. I picked 1 and 2 and 5 and 6. How did you lot find it?

1- Unpopular because of princes, Poor treament of nobles e.g. buckingham rebellion and was usurper( in context of war of roses and henry tudor)
2- Success- Battle of stoke/simnel and use of parliament Unsuccessful - Warbeck harrased for 9years and Cornish rebellion

5 - Achieved glory, wolsey wanted to be seen as a peacemaker and Financial reasons
6 - Domestic policy reason for fall (amicable grant) Foreign policy reason for fall Annulment and Anti burgundian/imperial to pro -french while the likes of duke of suffolk disagreed with this. (think I flopped this on badly, ran out of time and only did 3 points :frown: )

So this is what I wrote :smile:
For 1 i only got 2 reasons: the usurpation, they believed the princes were dead.

For 2 I put his use of parliament (attainders, dating back his reign).
Marrying Elizabeth (heirs and act of parliament that made her legitimate again).
I also then mentioned how Warbeck caused alot of instablity and said how the supp of charles viii was scary as he had helped henry overthro richard.

Then i mentioned how elizabeth died along with arthur which questioned the stability of his reign leaving only henry as a male heir.

I then in the conclusion said how henry successfully dealt w warbeck and that Henry's marriage to catherine secured span relations for a while.
Overall i put him as successful.

For 3 i put in that it harmed trade, Warbeck was no longer there and as a weak point i just thought up, since Butgundy was naturally anti French it made sense to try and get better relations (can someone verify this one?)

For 4 I mentioned how he made trade a feature in a number of treaties such med del camp.

I also mentioned how he pursued some trade in Florence which angered venice for a bit but he was able to neutralise them.

As a criticism, I mentioned how bad his relations with burg, his key trade partner was bad.

I also then mentioned that his trade didnt incr by much and it was only a fraction of his income. Also mentioned he didnt pursue it as much as crown lands which saw a bigger increase. Also then briefly mentioned the increase was partially due to recovery in trade after depression.

Overall i said he did have success.


What do you guys think of my points, especially on 2?

Also, if I didnt mention the second burg embargo, will that hinder me at all?

Hope you all found it good.




Posted from TSR Mobile

Latest