Triumph of Elizabeth A2 AQA June 12th Exam

Scroll to see replies

quick question- what is the erastrian structure? it kept appearing when i was reading through notes but cananot remember what it is!

Reply 61

Hobo389

Original post by Snoozy94

quick question- what is the erastrian structure? it kept appearing when i was reading through notes but cananot remember what it is!

Monarch as head of the Church rather than the Pope.

Reply 62

chrisluff

Hi this isn't related to your question but I have a few issues I would like to raise.
Firstly, I have covered Parliament with the whole Neale vs Elton debate. However I don't really have any examples of when relations between crown and parliament were harmonious or when there were clashes. I would really appreciate some examples with dates to strengthen my argument.

Secondly, I could do with a historiography of Elizabeth's foreign policy so if anyone could provide my with some historians views on the success of her foreign policies and particularly the war with Spain that would be brilliant!

Also, I don't have any quotes or views on Puritans other than Neale's annoying ''Puritan Choir''.

Reply 63

confusedexcited

I really don't understand why everyone is so preoccupied with quoting historians, it's not what the exam board want. Indeed, they say they don't want superfluous quotes in the examiners reports. Much like Lit, it's about showing a variety of possible interpretations from an individual event, which is a shame for the reconstructionists out there but hey!

Reply 64

MalleusMaleficarum

Original post by Safe

Two quick questions if anyone could answer please.

What exactly was the patronage system? I don't get what it actually did?

And also in an essay, do I refer to Cecil as William Cecil or Lord Burghley? Does it depend on the time span in which I'm writing my answer in? What if it's a question that is during Elizabeth's entire reign?

Second question a bit trivial I know but was just wondering haha.

Thanks!

Patronage was not a formal system as such -think of it as 'who you know, not what you know'. All powerful figures at court had significant numbers of followers, i.e. people who lent them political support in exchange for offices, rewards etcetera. For example, Essex tried to secure the post of attorney-general for his follower Francis Bacon in 1596 - that is patronage (although he characteristically failed).

About Cecil, either Cecil or Burghley would do. I would avoid calling him Burghley if you're referring to a date before 1571, but it doesn't matter generally speaking.

Reply 65

MalleusMaleficarum

Original post by chrisluff

The main clashes were:

1559 - The Church Settlement. Conservative opposition in the House of Lords nearly wrecked the Settlement and the Act of Uniformity passed by only three votes (two bishops were in prison, another mysteriously didn't attend).

1563/66 - Parliament (spurred on by the Privy Council) tried to persuade Elizabeth to marry.

1571/72/86 - Parliament tried to persuade Elizabeth to execute Mary, Queen of Scots and Norfolk. (This ties in with the succession debate.)

1597/1601 - The Monopolies Crisis. Elizabeth was forced to backtrack faced with determined opposition in the House of Commons, and cancelled/suspended many monopolies.

Secondly, I could do with a historiography of Elizabeth's foreign policy so if anyone could provide my with some historians views on the success of her foreign policies and particularly the war with Spain that would be brilliant!

Wernham - Her policy was clear, consistent and effective throughout. The Duke of Alva's entry into the Netherlands in 1567 was the turning point: afterwards, her policy centred around removing this threat.

Wilson - Her foreign policy was chaotic and ineffective and she missed her chance to intervene in the Low Countries while Spain was weak in the mid/late 1570s.

Loades - She was always reactive and defensive rather than pro-active.

Adams - She tried to nurture and protect international Protestantism.

Doran - She was ultimately successful as she achieved all of her aims.

McDermott - Privateering and Hawkins' voyages in the 1560s stoked tensions and were an important factor in the breakdown of relations.

Also, I don't have any quotes or views on Puritans other than Neale's annoying ''Puritan Choir''.

Most historians argue that they weren't a significant threat - Collinson in particular believes that Puritans were disorganised and had little influence.

Reply 66

Sophyla

Is late Elizabethan Foreign Policy likely to come up? I hate it :frown:

Reply 67

MalleusMaleficarum

Original post by Sophyla

Is late Elizabethan Foreign Policy likely to come up? I hate it :frown:

Unfortunately not (I love it) - I think that there's an excellent chance of earlier foreign policy coming up, since it hasn't for several years. Later foreign policy came up two years ago, so probably not.

You might just hate it because, if your school is anything like mine, it's taught badly in class. Do some research and it becomes really simple; besides, the different theatres make essay structure incredibly easy.

Reply 68

chrisluff

Thanks a lot. What do you reckon a question on earlier foreign policy would be? Something about how successful were her policies or the state of relations?

Reply 69

Char Wari

I'm 100% confident of the Mid-Tudor Crisis for Edward VI (Somerset+Northumberland) and Mary I. Because I've done in-depth revision for it, because it's likely to come up. If it doesn't, then you can expect to see me in a 'fit of rage' on these forums!

Other than that, it's really a big topic for Elizabeth in which two questions could come up. I'm convinced that something about her later years in her reign could come up. Perhaps something orientated around the end of Elizabeth's reign with Ireland.. as a fellow member of these forums stated earlier.

Finally, I'd like to wish all my fellow students sitting this exam, the best of luck with their studying and their final essay they produce in the exam hall!
(and of course for those not on these forums, to crumble down in failure to bring the grade boundaries down in case the exam doesn't go well) Only Joking :biggrin:

Reply 70

MalleusMaleficarum

Original post by chrisluff

Thanks a lot. What do you reckon a question on earlier foreign policy would be? Something about how successful were her policies or the state of relations?

Probably either how successful she was, or the factors - political/economic/religious in any combination.

Reply 71

chrisluff

Oh i see so there could be a question on why the relations deteriorated. And Char Wari i wouldn't focus on the mid tumor crisis too much, it is only a quarter of the course

Reply 72

Char Wari

well it's likely to be one of the questions. I've finished that section, and now I'm hoping to sandbag my revision on several more topics which could have a tendency of coming up, and I'l be hoping for the best!

But if Foreign policy comes up, what sections would appear? That's my next area of revision, for the Netherlands, Spanish Armada....

Anyone know what the 1562 crisis is, and the full implications behind it? (I'm really confused) Thanks :smile:

Reply 73

Snoozy94

Has anyone got a good idea of what is likely to come up as my teacher kept saying lots of things and really doesnt know! I've really revised foreign policy as i didnt understand that and also puritans as i knew catholics pretty well
I wondered whether a question asking whether Elizabeths reign did have a decline would come up?

Also what do I need to know about parliament as that always confused me!

thanks!!

Reply 74

MalleusMaleficarum

Original post by Char Wari

Anyone know what the 1562 crisis is, and the full implications behind it? (I'm really confused) Thanks :smile:

Smallpox - Elizabeth nearly died in 1562. The consequences were the Privy Council pestering her to marry and/or name a successor, which spilled over into the succession debates in Parliament in 1563 and 1566.

Reply 75

abbey-chic

Does anyone think the economy is going to come up? I know it's random but it could possibly be a "breadth" question e.g. How successfully did Elizabeth deal with the economy throughout her reign or linked to foreign policy e.g. To what extent did financial pressures influence Elizabethan foreign policy...

OR! A question comparing Ed/Mary/early-Liz...

What d'ya think? What could you put into an essay?

Reply 76

Char Wari

Economy should be interlinked with the Foreign Policy...
The 1568, Americas trade... English pirates taking over Spanish ships and Elizabeth detaining them. (Taking all the money and goods)...

For Mary, I think it's not a broad enough topic to cover for Ed and Mary, although there were poor harvests. They will focus more in terms of a crisis.

It's a possibility they will, you've got the 'Book of Rates' 'Setting up the motion of coinage' for Mary, and for Somerset you've got the Chantries Act of 1547, where he closed down chantries and took silver and gold plates to be burned down into coins (Inflation, Debased Economy).

Northumberland, he took Church Lands to keep his money going on... plus Edward's reign had poor harvests which affected Mary I when she wanted to go to war with France because she lacked supplies...

I doubt a 45 mark essay could solely be done on economy. But I could be wrong?

Maybe along the lines of 'The period 1547-58 was solely marked by an economic crisis'. Assess the validity of this view. Then you can argue other points that it was marked more because of religious crisis or political.... it's worth revising parts of economy as it may benefit you in terms of covering the Mark Scheme, and broaden your knowledge of the Ed/Mary time period.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 77

Sophyla

Original post by MalleusMaleficarum

My school taught everything pretty badly - they skipped entire areas >.>
I'm glad about that, I just find it incredibly dull, even when I was self-teaching it :')

Reply 78

Char Wari

My teacher started teaching it from different aspects all scattered around the area. Half of the time we were watching videos of how things turned out, I was the only one who opposed for videos, but others said yes as it was a 'better way of learning'. We will see on results day who was correct and who was not, as they used it to 'doze off'.

Self-studying this topic is quite difficult, as there is a lot of aspects which have to be covered, and I respect all those going through the same situation as I am. Chronological order revision works the best, and before you start revising the next topic in Elizabeth, make a short summary of what you studied before. That way it will remain in your head, and you will remember key acts, dates and whatever.

Keep going everyone, roughly just over 5 days to go until we are in that exam hall :smile:

Reply 79

deathhead

Original post by Char Wari

I find thematically works too... like the official AQA book is ordered everything that happened 47-58 then 58-71 then 71-88 then 88-03. The access to history book is like religion 58-03, foreign 58-03 etc. I'm doing it thematically purely cuz it's easier to organise, arguably the order you revise this subject is one of the hardest things. It took me a while to decide between revising chronologically and thematically but I don't think one is miles better than the other. I know what u mean about teacher, ours never got up and wrote stuff on the board, just talked all lesson, impossible to concentrate for so long on just colloquial talking about what happened. I need 26/45 for an A in history and I think I'm going to struggle to get it, mainly cuz of essay technique. My revision is making notes on all books nd sheets and going over it basically.