The Student Room Group

Triumph of Elizabeth A2 AQA June 12th Exam

Scroll to see replies

Reply 140
Hey guys, I've done a plan for this question not too long ago, using a candidate's script from that particular exam that my teacher gave us. He said that overall she achieved an A so it must be decent
Hope you can understand the abbreviations and whatnot.

‘In the years 1547 to 1558 English government was at its most effective during the rule
of Mary I.’ How valid is this assessment?

Intro

>Throughout the protectorate of Somerset, short governance of Northumberland and turbulent reign of Mary I, it can be said that the government proved most effective under John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland
>The revisionist view of Northumberland views him as having created and maintained an effective government in comparison to Somerset and Mary I, whose fiscal, naval and conciliar reforms were not noticed until the reign of Elizabeth
>Hoak “one of the most remarkably able governors of any European state during the 16th Century”

Somerset

>Situation inherited - bound by Treaty of Greenwich - religious disunity - bankruptcy
>Somerset initially sparked confidence - able leader - public confidence seen by Battle of Pinkie success September 1547 - Chantries Act created Crown finance + sale of Crown lands = effective government
>However - failed to make use of Privy Council - proclamations = ineffective gov. no delegation - pre-occupied with war in Scotland + France = neglect of domestic policy, leading to Kett Rebellion 1549
>Somerset’s gov. also unclear on religion - First Edwardian Act of Uniformity + Economic factors, such as debasement of coinage, Sheep Tax = Western Rebellion
>Therefore Somerset’s gov. proved very ineffective - leaving the credible Northumberland with Somerset’s war debt of £1,356,000 - garrisons in Scotland which could not be maintained + social discontent

Northumberland

>Northumberland created a much more effective gov. - use of PC + inner council = unequivocal control over ministers, he reformed religion more clearly - Second Act of Edwardian Uniformity = clearly outlining the Eucharist in terms of transubstantiation = English people less confused
>He showed an effective overhaul of government finances - last debasement of the coinage 1551 = £140,000 profit + confidence in gov. increased - silver content of Henry VIII reign
>He created stability in terms of foreign policy - Treaty of Boulogne - 400,000 crowns and marriage alliance worth 200,000 crowns
>However Northumberland ousted conservatives from Parl. - underestimated support for Mary I and Act of Succession - Lady Jane Grey Coup = Northumberland’s death and credibility in tatters
>His skills in gov. did however redeem him in the eyes of revisionist historians - Lockyer recognised Northumberland “laid the foundations for future accountability…his return to rule by the Privy Council…showed the path that English gov. was to take in the second half of the Century”

Mary I

>Support for Mary was initially high - LJG coup failed - she succeeded in gov. control through committees for naval admin, tax reform etc.
>However initial effective gov. was usurped by Philip II’s influence and she was pre-occupied with the restoration of Catholicism
>An inner council of 9 members - Gardiner/Paget discussion of matters + cooperation = Tittler’s description of Marian gov. “more organised and able to administer more than originally thought”
>Furthermore Mary made significant naval/military reforms - increasing their expenditure + also built on Northumberland’s economic reforms = Marian Book of Rates + customs duty = £85,000
>However Mary I’s policy of patronage - too large a PC = unable to function + factionalism Paget/Gardiner. Elton “no positive achievements” + “lacked the essentials to rule”
>Wyatt Rebellion = lack of authority + lack of support from nobility. Caused by marriage to P II. Lack of effective gov. under Mary I’s later reign due to religious priority. Elton - two things dominated Mary I’s mind “her religion and her Spanish descent”.

Conclusion

>In the years 1547-1558 - gov. most effective under Northumberland - a view now widely agreed upon historians such as Hoak and Lockyer
>Somerset’s rule witnessed increased expenditure + wars in Scotland and France + lack of religious reform = ineffective gov. “he was simply not up to managing the inheritance of Henry VIII” - the traditional view of Somerset as the ‘Good Duke’ can be seen as innacurate
>Northumberland’s effective gov. can be seen by the way in which Mary I built upon his economic reforms. She therefore had some success in military/naval reforms to be utilised under Elizabeth - BUT lack of control over the PC and dominance of P II created ineffective gov.
>Therefore Northumberland’s rule, it can be said, was the most effective - ‘Bad Duke’ reputation now applicable to Somerset

Sorry haven't mastered Spoilers yet :smile:
Reply 141
What was the significance of Eliz's expulsion of the Dutch Sea Beggers in 1572? I understand that it caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations but not much further... :/
Reply 142
Original post by Preeti!
What was the significance of Eliz's expulsion of the Dutch Sea Beggers in 1572? I understand that it caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations but not much further... :/


That's about it, Wilson argues it was an act of piracy, she got a nice new loan I guess.
Reply 143
Original post by Hobo389
That's about it, Wilson argues it was an act of piracy, she got a nice new loan I guess.


why did she get a new loan from that?
Reply 144
Original post by Preeti!
why did she get a new loan from that?


Well as it was back then she simply was able to take over the loan.
Reply 145
Original post by Hobo389
Well as it was back then she simply was able to take over the loan.


So the same way as the Genoese (I've spelt that wrong) loan?
Reply 146
Original post by Preeti!
So the same way as the Genoese (I've spelt that wrong) loan?


Spelt it right :smile: and yes well, as Philip had taken the loan from the Geonoese, Elizabeth took it over and owed the Genoese it's repayments rather than Philip, but it's really not at all important.
Reply 147
Original post by Hobo389
Spelt it right :smile: and yes well, as Philip had taken the loan from the Geonoese, Elizabeth took it over and owed the Genoese it's repayments rather than Philip, but it's really not at all important.


aha okay thanks :smile: I thought that Philip still owed the repayments though... oh well - I have a habit of getting stuck on little details that really don't matter
Reply 148
Original post by Hobo389
That's about it, Wilson argues it was an act of piracy, she got a nice new loan I guess.


I think you might getting confused with the seizure of Spanish ships, which is something completely different.
Reply 149
Original post by Harry.K
I think you might getting confused with the seizure of Spanish ships, which is something completely different.


she got a loan from seizing Spanish ships?!?
Reply 150
Original post by Preeti!
she got a loan from seizing Spanish ships?!?


Bascially, spanish ships had to seek shelter in ports in devon and cornwall in novemner 1568. these ships were carrying money borrowed from genoese bankers, which was going to be used to pay the spanish troops who were based in the netherlands.

elizabeth decided to impound the money- she wasn't technically stealing it because it did not belong to the spanish as it was just a loan, and elizabeth could just claim that she was taking over the loan.
Reply 151
Original post by Preeti!
What was the significance of Eliz's expulsion of the Dutch Sea Beggers in 1572? I understand that it caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations but not much further... :/


Oh sorry, completely missed your point and confused it With another. The Dutch sea Beggars were basically pirates that went and harassed the Spanish in the Netherlands.
Reply 152
Original post by Preeti!
What was the significance of Eliz's expulsion of the Dutch Sea Beggers in 1572? I understand that it caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations but not much further... :/


I thought that it initially seemed like an aggressive act by Spain as it looked like English support of Orange's privateers. When she got rid of them, however, it looked like the English were sending them back to the Netherlands to rebel. This was made worse by the fact that when they landed in Brielle their presence sparked a rebellion against Alba's high taxation and the revolt as a whole began.
Reply 153
Original post by Hobo389
Oh sorry, completely missed your point and confused it With another. The Dutch sea Beggars were basically pirates that went and harassed the Spanish in the Netherlands.


aha no worries :smile: so then why would she expel them when she was encouraging attacks on the Spanish by Raleigh?
Reply 154
Original post by Preeti!
aha no worries :smile: so then why would she expel them when she was encouraging attacks on the Spanish by Raleigh?


As JoeM has put it for my stupidity!

Original post by JoeM
I thought that it initially seemed like an aggressive act by Spain as it looked like English support of Orange's privateers. When she got rid of them, however, it looked like the English were sending them back to the Netherlands to rebel. This was made worse by the fact that when they landed in Brielle their presence sparked a rebellion against Alba's high taxation and the revolt as a whole began.
Reply 155
Original post by Hobo389
As JoeM has put it for my stupidity!


Oh I hadn't noticed that one - thanks everyone :smile:
Reply 156
Has anyone else noticed that in the textbook it says that Gardiner supported the wording of Elizabeth's communion but also says that he died in 1555, four years before the settlement reached Parliament? What exactly are we meant to gain from that?
Reply 157
Original post by JoeM
Has anyone else noticed that in the textbook it says that Gardiner supported the wording of Elizabeth's communion but also says that he died in 1555, four years before the settlement reached Parliament? What exactly are we meant to gain from that?


He can't have died then - he became Archbishop of Canterbury later ...
Reply 158
Original post by Preeti!
He can't have died then - he became Archbishop of Canterbury later ...


One of Elizabeth's? I thought it was Parker until 1575, Grindal until 1583 and then Whitgift until her death.
Reply 159
Original post by JoeM
One of Elizabeth's? I thought it was Parker until 1575, Grindal until 1583 and then Whitgift until her death.


I thought it was Gardiner until 1559? and then those in that order

Quick Reply