AQA TRIUMPH OF ELIZABETH HIS3B 8th JUNE 2015
Scroll to see replies
Original post by edgarcats
There are three basics options in terms of structure:
1). By factors (E.G. religion/social/political, etc)
2) By time (E.G. 1st 1/3rd of Elizabeth/ 2/3 / 3/3)
3) YES/NO, wherein you do a paragraph saying yes to the statement within the questions, followed by a paragraph saying no, etc
I personally prefer the first option because I feel like my ideas are more clearly presented, I naturally use more precise/well-selected evidence, etc.
For instance: "In the years 1547-1558 English government was at its most effective during the rule of Mary I." How valid is this assessment? (June 2010)
I would answer in terms of the factors of religion/social+domestic/political/foreign policy. Naturally these factors all link together as some events are not just the result of one factor, e.g. Wyatt's rebellion was partly political because some nobles/gentry worried that the Spanish would take positions at court, partly result of econ/social factors, partly FP. By showing these links, you automatically make a more sophisticated argument and it will lead you to a more analytical conclusion wherein you link different factors across the Mid-Tudor period.
Hopefully that was helpful. I usually interweave historical interpretation to support evidence and the points I'm making as it always has to be concise and relevant.
1). By factors (E.G. religion/social/political, etc)
2) By time (E.G. 1st 1/3rd of Elizabeth/ 2/3 / 3/3)
3) YES/NO, wherein you do a paragraph saying yes to the statement within the questions, followed by a paragraph saying no, etc
I personally prefer the first option because I feel like my ideas are more clearly presented, I naturally use more precise/well-selected evidence, etc.
For instance: "In the years 1547-1558 English government was at its most effective during the rule of Mary I." How valid is this assessment? (June 2010)
I would answer in terms of the factors of religion/social+domestic/political/foreign policy. Naturally these factors all link together as some events are not just the result of one factor, e.g. Wyatt's rebellion was partly political because some nobles/gentry worried that the Spanish would take positions at court, partly result of econ/social factors, partly FP. By showing these links, you automatically make a more sophisticated argument and it will lead you to a more analytical conclusion wherein you link different factors across the Mid-Tudor period.
Hopefully that was helpful. I usually interweave historical interpretation to support evidence and the points I'm making as it always has to be concise and relevant.
If it helps, anyone here's what I've been doing (I've been given upwards of 35 marks when it's been marked previously in mocks, and my teacher is pretty harsh)
The structure I've been using for all my essays has been 'on the one hand', 'on the other hand', with 3 points on either side in an agree/disagree format.
I basically have a mental checklist of things to include in my essay:
- An introduction defining any key terms in the question (like royal authority, for example), outlining my argument/points, while also including an overview from one or two historians on the topic/period as a whole to support what I think.
- Specific information (key dates and names of people, events etc.)
- Relevant points that add to my argument
- Synoptic links (references to interlinked events from areas outside the question)
- Historiographical debate agreeing/disagreeing using a range of historians, along with my opinion on which I think is the most convincing
- Contemporary accounts where possible
- A conclusion that says which historians' arguments I find the most convincing, summarises my points and reiterates whether or not I agree/disagree with the statement in the question.
For this particular question about Mary, I'd probably use these points...
Agree:
1.) 1553 revival of the heresy laws (allowed her to crush opposition - burning of notable Protestants Hooper, Ridley, Latimer and Edward's Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer) shows her effectiveness in dealing with opponents to her administration.
2.) Mary encountered significantly less threatening rebellions (1554 Wyatt's rebellion was quickly and decisively put down by Mary) which shows her effectiveness in comparison to the Duke of Somerset in his indecisive and delayed dealing with the Western and Kett's rebellions.
3.) Mary successfully implemented her religious policy, resulting in a relatively smooth transition to Catholicism, limited only by the fact that her reign was so short - by the end of her reign, England was predominantly a Catholic country. Shows effectiveness in her administration creating a successful and widely accepted religious policy.
Disagree:
1.) Calais was besieged and lost to the French - it was the last piece of French territory that England held from Henry VIII's war with France - losing it was costly and humiliating, not just for Mary as the first Tudor Queen in Europe, but for England's international reputation as a leading power - it can be argued that this undermined the effectiveness of her government as confidence fell in her ability to lead.
This would lead to the treaty of Cateau-Cambresis in 1558 when Elizabeth takes over which affirms that Calais belongs to the French, which she would later attempt to reclaim when she sends troops to France in 562-1564 to deal with the Huguenots, but results in another national embarrassment for Elizabeth (parallels to Mary).
2.) Edward VI's administration had success too - the Duke of Northumberland quashed the 1549 Kett's rebellion with relative ease, led a coup in 1550 against the failing Duke of Somerset in order to replace him as Lord President of the Council, thus regaining some credibility, and immediately took action to end expensive wars with France and Scotland (Treaty of Boulogne), and debased the coinage one last time to boost the economy.
3.) Edward VI's administration had also implemented a widely accepted Protestant religious settlement, which would provide the foundations for Elizabeth's in 1559.
I hope that helps!
Original post by wjc
In terms of defining key terms (ie authority, government) etc. how do you guys usually break such words down? The term government usually throws me off because am I expected to discuss religious matters as well as political?
I usually just give an interpretation of the word so that I have as much flexibility as possible in terms of the points I can make. So, for example, with government, I'd say that it is 'The effectiveness of the monarch's administration as a whole, in terms of its implementation of foreign, domestic and religious policy.'
That would allow you to discuss all three aspects, each in a separate point.
Given that Edward VI has two key ministers in the form of the Duke of Somerset/Northumberland (his Lord Protector/Lord President), you can focus on the effectiveness of them specifically in Edward's administration.
Mary, however, doesn't exactly have any key people (other than her Catholic Archbishop, Reginald Pole who successfully led the transition from Protestantism to Catholicism).
If we're focusing on Elizabeth's reign though, I would try to focus on Parliament/Convocation and the effectiveness of key ministers/the privy council, given that the question is about government. So, for example, Sir William Cecil (Baron Burghley in 1571), Sir Robert Cecil, Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester in 1564), Sir Francis Walsingham (Secretary of State in 1573) etc.
Royal authority is pretty similar in that I would say that it is 'the respect for the monarch's legitimacy and policy-making decisions' - then I'd talk about stability/instability in the reign and attempts to undermine their authority (rebellion/plots, political/religious opposition etc.)
Original post by Causton97
I usually just give an interpretation of the word so that I have as much flexibility as possible in terms of the points I can make. So, for example, with government, I'd say that it is 'The effectiveness of the monarch's administration as a whole, in terms of its implementation of foreign, domestic and religious policy.'
That would allow you to discuss all three aspects, each in a separate point.
Given that Edward VI has two key ministers in the form of the Duke of Somerset/Northumberland (his Lord Protector/Lord President), you can focus on the effectiveness of them specifically in Edward's administration.
Mary, however, doesn't exactly have any key people (other than her Catholic Archbishop, Reginald Pole who successfully led the transition from Protestantism to Catholicism).
If we're focusing on Elizabeth's reign though, I would try to focus on Parliament/Convocation and the effectiveness of key ministers/the privy council, given that the question is about government. So, for example, Sir William Cecil (Baron Burghley in 1571), Sir Robert Cecil, Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester in 1564), Sir Francis Walsingham (Secretary of State in 1573) etc.
Royal authority is pretty similar in that I would say that it is 'the respect for the monarch's legitimacy and policy-making decisions' - then I'd talk about stability/instability in the reign and attempts to undermine their authority (rebellion/plots, political/religious opposition etc.)
That would allow you to discuss all three aspects, each in a separate point.
Given that Edward VI has two key ministers in the form of the Duke of Somerset/Northumberland (his Lord Protector/Lord President), you can focus on the effectiveness of them specifically in Edward's administration.
Mary, however, doesn't exactly have any key people (other than her Catholic Archbishop, Reginald Pole who successfully led the transition from Protestantism to Catholicism).
If we're focusing on Elizabeth's reign though, I would try to focus on Parliament/Convocation and the effectiveness of key ministers/the privy council, given that the question is about government. So, for example, Sir William Cecil (Baron Burghley in 1571), Sir Robert Cecil, Robert Dudley (Earl of Leicester in 1564), Sir Francis Walsingham (Secretary of State in 1573) etc.
Royal authority is pretty similar in that I would say that it is 'the respect for the monarch's legitimacy and policy-making decisions' - then I'd talk about stability/instability in the reign and attempts to undermine their authority (rebellion/plots, political/religious opposition etc.)
Ahh brilliant thank you, that's made things much clearer to me. Hopefully the wording of the questions isn't too off-putting but I suppose when it's vague terms like 'government' and 'authority' we're allowed to pursue our own understanding. Specific questions are usually my worst nightmare (like the one a few years ago that asked us to discuss her relationship with her ministers).
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by wjc
Ahh brilliant thank you, that's made things much clearer to me. Hopefully the wording of the questions isn't too off-putting but I suppose when it's vague terms like 'government' and 'authority' we're allowed to pursue our own understanding. Specific questions are usually my worst nightmare (like the one a few years ago that asked us to discuss her relationship with her ministers).
That's alright, I'm happy to help
I also prefer the vague questions... they're more open ended and give you more flexibility in terms of what points you can make.
I remember doing the ministers question for our big mock exam back in January. I'll list the points I made because it'll be good revision for me anyway, but hopefully it'll help you out too!
'To what extent was Elizabeth well served by her ministers throughout her reign?'
For:
1.) Patronage was frequently given out over the course of her reign. For example, Sir William Cecil became Baron Burghley in 1571 and Sir Robert Dudley became the Earl of Leicester in 1564, with Sir Francis Walsingham becoming Secretary of State in 1573. It shows that they were effective in their positions and rewarded as a result.
2.) Foreign Policy successes - the stealing of the Genoese Loan of 1568 was masterminded by Sir William Cecil's and suggested to Elizabeth after ships carrying the money landed in Cornwall and Devon following bad weather sending them off-course. It greatly antagonised Philip II of Spain as over 400,000 florins intended for the Duke of Alva and his army in the Netherlands were stolen, and the debt was taken on (completely legally) by Elizabeth. This furthered her foreign policy objectives by ensuring that she undermined Philip's authority and caused disruption in his attempt to gain control of the Netherlands, which she wanted to maintain autonomous in order to maintain English trade interests. The Netherlands were also of key geo-strategic value due to its importance as a location from which a possible invasion of England could be staged, which Elizabeth wanted to avoid at all costs.
3.) 1572 Admonition to Parliament - The membership of her key ministers and privy councillors in both the House of Commons and Lords ensured that the reforms suggested by Presbyterians Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field were swiftly blocked and the opposition dealt with. Other dissidents include Puritan Anthony Cope with his bill and book campaign in 1586, which was also blocked, along with Peter Wentworth, who frequently advocated greater freedom of speech in the 1576 and 1586 Parliaments, and raised the issue of succession in the 1593 Parliament, all of which resulted in him being incarcerated in the Tower of London on numerous occasions. Her ministers were effective in dealing with political and religious opposition in Parliament.
Against:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots - It was suggested that Sir William Cecil held a 'personal vendetta' against Mary Stuart due to the threat that she posed to Elizabeth, which was crucial in his involvement in her execution. Following Mary being declared guilty of treason in 1585 and the Babington Plot of 1586, in which decisive evidence was obtained (by Sir Francis Walsingham's spies), a death warrant was issued for Mary. Elizabeth signed the death warrant (it was suggested that she may have done it unknowingly or was coerced by her ministers), but refused to send it. William Cecil set the wheels in motion for Mary's execution by going against Elizabeth and personally sending the death warrant himself. Elizabeth was furious with him, and this points to her not being well served by her ministers, despite Cecil's good intention in removing arguably the biggest threat to her position on the throne
2.) The 'Robert Dudley' debacle - Emerging as the Queen's favourite in 1560 and receiving the title 'Earl of Leicester' in 1564, Robert Dudley was a strong potential suitor for Elizabeth and carried a large amount of political authority. However, following the unfortunate death of his wife, Amy Dudley, from falling down a flight of stairs, suspicion began to grow about the curious accident that had befallen her, with allegations circulating that Robert Dudley had been involved in a bid to get closer to the Queen and ultimately marry her. Keen to avoid being dragged into the scandal, Elizabeth promptly distanced herself from Dudley to limit the political fallout and assert her authority. This also points to her not being well served as she was forced to distance herself from one of her most able ministers due to a political scandal, which limited the effectiveness of her government. Regardless of whether Amy Dudley's death had been an accident or not, it was a scandal that could greatly damage and undermine the authority of Elizabeth and her administration as a whole.
3.) Death of key ministers - In 1572 Lord Treasurer Winchester died (he had shown loyalty in serving four successive Tudor monarchs), followed by Robert Dudley in 1588 and her Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham, in 1590. Also, Sir William Cecil died in 1598, which was a devastating blow for her government, as administration became less efficient due to these deaths. Suitable replacements had to be found, and they were, in the form of Sir Robert Cecil and Sir Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. However, they held a rivalry which slowed down adminstrative affairs, and Devereux in particular was unwilling to comply with Elizabeth's demands when dealing with the Tyrone Rebellion in 1599, which led to him being stripped of his sweet wine monopoly and causing the Essex Rebellion in 1601, which was promptly quashed, but went against Elizabeth's authority. All of this points towards Elizabeth not being well served by her ministers.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Causton97
That's alright, I'm happy to help
I also prefer the vague questions... they're more open ended and give you more flexibility in terms of what points you can make.
I remember doing the ministers question for our big mock exam back in January. I'll list the points I made because it'll be good revision for me anyway, but hopefully it'll help you out too!
'To what extent was Elizabeth well served by her ministers throughout her reign?'
For:
1.) Patronage was frequently given out over the course of her reign. For example, Sir William Cecil became Baron Burghley in 1571 and Sir Robert Dudley became the Earl of Leicester in 1564, with Sir Francis Walsingham becoming Secretary of State in 1573. It shows that they were effective in their positions and rewarded as a result.
2.) Foreign Policy successes - the stealing of the Genoese Loan of 1568 was masterminded by Sir William Cecil's and suggested to Elizabeth after ships carrying the money landed in Cornwall and Devon following bad weather sending them off-course. It greatly antagonised Philip II of Spain as over 400,000 florins intended for the Duke of Alva and his army in the Netherlands were stolen, and the debt was taken on (completely legally) by Elizabeth. This furthered her foreign policy objectives by ensuring that she undermined Philip's authority and caused disruption in his attempt to gain control of the Netherlands, which she wanted to maintain autonomous in order to maintain English trade interests. The Netherlands were also of key geo-strategic value due to its importance as a location from which a possible invasion of England could be staged, which Elizabeth wanted to avoid at all costs.
3.) 1572 Admonition to Parliament - The membership of her key ministers and privy councillors in both the House of Commons and Lords ensured that the reforms suggested by Presbyterians Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field were swiftly blocked and the opposition dealt with. Other dissidents include Puritan Anthony Cope with his bill and book campaign in 1586, which was also blocked, along with Peter Wentworth, who frequently advocated greater freedom of speech in the 1576 and 1586 Parliaments, and raised the issue of succession in the 1593 Parliament, all of which resulted in him being incarcerated in the Tower of London on numerous occasions. Her ministers were effective in dealing with political and religious opposition in Parliament.
Against:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots - It was suggested that Sir William Cecil held a 'personal vendetta' against Mary Stuart due to the threat that she posed to Elizabeth, which was crucial in his involvement in her execution. Following Mary being declared guilty of treason in 1585 and the Babington Plot of 1586, in which decisive evidence was obtained (by Sir Francis Walsingham's spies), a death warrant was issued for Mary. Elizabeth signed the death warrant (it was suggested that she may have done it unknowingly or was coerced by her ministers), but refused to send it. William Cecil set the wheels in motion for Mary's execution by going against Elizabeth and personally sending the death warrant himself. Elizabeth was furious with him, and this points to her not being well served by her ministers, despite Cecil's good intention in removing arguably the biggest threat to her position on the throne
2.) The 'Robert Dudley' debacle - Emerging as the Queen's favourite in 1560 and receiving the title 'Earl of Leicester' in 1564, Robert Dudley was a strong potential suitor for Elizabeth and carried a large amount of political authority. However, following the unfortunate death of his wife, Amy Dudley, from falling down a flight of stairs, suspicion began to grow about the curious accident that had befallen her, with allegations circulating that Robert Dudley had been involved in a bid to get closer to the Queen and ultimately marry her. Keen to avoid being dragged into the scandal, Elizabeth promptly distanced herself from Dudley to limit the political fallout and assert her authority. This also points to her not being well served as she was forced to distance herself from one of her most able ministers due to a political scandal, which limited the effectiveness of her government. Regardless of whether Amy Dudley's death had been an accident or not, it was a scandal that could greatly damage and undermine the authority of Elizabeth and her administration as a whole.
3.) Death of key ministers - In 1572 Lord Treasurer Winchester died (he had shown loyalty in serving four successive Tudor monarchs), followed by Robert Dudley in 1588 and her Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham, in 1590. Also, Sir William Cecil died in 1598, which was a devastating blow for her government, as administration became less efficient due to these deaths. Suitable replacements had to be found, and they were, in the form of Sir Robert Dudley and Sir Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. However, they held a rivalry which slowed down adminstrative affairs, and Devereux in particular was unwilling to comply with Elizabeth's demands when dealing with the Tyrone Rebellion in 1599, which led to him being stripped of his sweet wine monopoly and causing the Essex Rebellion in 1601, which was promptly quashed, but went against Elizabeth's authority. All of this points towards Elizabeth not being well served by her ministers.
I also prefer the vague questions... they're more open ended and give you more flexibility in terms of what points you can make.
I remember doing the ministers question for our big mock exam back in January. I'll list the points I made because it'll be good revision for me anyway, but hopefully it'll help you out too!
'To what extent was Elizabeth well served by her ministers throughout her reign?'
For:
1.) Patronage was frequently given out over the course of her reign. For example, Sir William Cecil became Baron Burghley in 1571 and Sir Robert Dudley became the Earl of Leicester in 1564, with Sir Francis Walsingham becoming Secretary of State in 1573. It shows that they were effective in their positions and rewarded as a result.
2.) Foreign Policy successes - the stealing of the Genoese Loan of 1568 was masterminded by Sir William Cecil's and suggested to Elizabeth after ships carrying the money landed in Cornwall and Devon following bad weather sending them off-course. It greatly antagonised Philip II of Spain as over 400,000 florins intended for the Duke of Alva and his army in the Netherlands were stolen, and the debt was taken on (completely legally) by Elizabeth. This furthered her foreign policy objectives by ensuring that she undermined Philip's authority and caused disruption in his attempt to gain control of the Netherlands, which she wanted to maintain autonomous in order to maintain English trade interests. The Netherlands were also of key geo-strategic value due to its importance as a location from which a possible invasion of England could be staged, which Elizabeth wanted to avoid at all costs.
3.) 1572 Admonition to Parliament - The membership of her key ministers and privy councillors in both the House of Commons and Lords ensured that the reforms suggested by Presbyterians Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field were swiftly blocked and the opposition dealt with. Other dissidents include Puritan Anthony Cope with his bill and book campaign in 1586, which was also blocked, along with Peter Wentworth, who frequently advocated greater freedom of speech in the 1576 and 1586 Parliaments, and raised the issue of succession in the 1593 Parliament, all of which resulted in him being incarcerated in the Tower of London on numerous occasions. Her ministers were effective in dealing with political and religious opposition in Parliament.
Against:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots - It was suggested that Sir William Cecil held a 'personal vendetta' against Mary Stuart due to the threat that she posed to Elizabeth, which was crucial in his involvement in her execution. Following Mary being declared guilty of treason in 1585 and the Babington Plot of 1586, in which decisive evidence was obtained (by Sir Francis Walsingham's spies), a death warrant was issued for Mary. Elizabeth signed the death warrant (it was suggested that she may have done it unknowingly or was coerced by her ministers), but refused to send it. William Cecil set the wheels in motion for Mary's execution by going against Elizabeth and personally sending the death warrant himself. Elizabeth was furious with him, and this points to her not being well served by her ministers, despite Cecil's good intention in removing arguably the biggest threat to her position on the throne
2.) The 'Robert Dudley' debacle - Emerging as the Queen's favourite in 1560 and receiving the title 'Earl of Leicester' in 1564, Robert Dudley was a strong potential suitor for Elizabeth and carried a large amount of political authority. However, following the unfortunate death of his wife, Amy Dudley, from falling down a flight of stairs, suspicion began to grow about the curious accident that had befallen her, with allegations circulating that Robert Dudley had been involved in a bid to get closer to the Queen and ultimately marry her. Keen to avoid being dragged into the scandal, Elizabeth promptly distanced herself from Dudley to limit the political fallout and assert her authority. This also points to her not being well served as she was forced to distance herself from one of her most able ministers due to a political scandal, which limited the effectiveness of her government. Regardless of whether Amy Dudley's death had been an accident or not, it was a scandal that could greatly damage and undermine the authority of Elizabeth and her administration as a whole.
3.) Death of key ministers - In 1572 Lord Treasurer Winchester died (he had shown loyalty in serving four successive Tudor monarchs), followed by Robert Dudley in 1588 and her Secretary of State, Sir Francis Walsingham, in 1590. Also, Sir William Cecil died in 1598, which was a devastating blow for her government, as administration became less efficient due to these deaths. Suitable replacements had to be found, and they were, in the form of Sir Robert Dudley and Sir Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. However, they held a rivalry which slowed down adminstrative affairs, and Devereux in particular was unwilling to comply with Elizabeth's demands when dealing with the Tyrone Rebellion in 1599, which led to him being stripped of his sweet wine monopoly and causing the Essex Rebellion in 1601, which was promptly quashed, but went against Elizabeth's authority. All of this points towards Elizabeth not being well served by her ministers.
That's a great way on tackling that sort of question thank you! Makes a lot more sense than trying to arrange it in an awkward 'factor' format. Another point for the ministers one which I think would fit nicely into your third point (although I'm sure you're aware of) would be the 1584 Bond of Association.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure 'government' only constituted the monarch and council and not parliament
Original post by Freestyle29
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure 'government' only constituted the monarch and council and not parliament
I thought government was just anything to do with the monarch's administration, which would surely include Parliament too, given that you could mention the passing of legislation to help the poor and to combat the threat of Seminary priests/Jesuits and Puritans...? I mean, I think it depends on how you define it really, but I'll ask my teacher tomorrow to clarify it for me.
Original post by Freestyle29
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure 'government' only constituted the monarch and council and not parliament
Parliament is certainly part of government, and an essential one too. It certainly became a necessary part of it from HVIII's reign given that its support was essential in the passing of bills. Government will also include the handling of local issues with regards to commissions, JPs etc. Just as an example, you could criticise the cohesion of national government for the failure to account for cultural divides between the North and South which could be perceived to have been a cause in the Northern Rebellion. The failure to grant Northumberland and Westmorland key places in local government and exclusion from the benefits of patronage (also a key feature of government) was also a clear cut motive of the leadership. The monarch and council are certainly vital in understanding the role of government since that is how most decision were made (remember the Council's executive role), but any question that mentions government can mean anything to do with the council, parliament, financial administration etc. right down to a local level where it was arguably most crucial in maintaining control.
I'm happy to be wrong on this (then there will be more to write about!!! 
) but our teacher told us that parliament is not technically included in government and that you can briefly mention it but shouldn't dwell on it.
A modern day example is the current UK government is made up of PM + cabinet + ministers (some MPS but not in the form of parliament) See below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works
I don't entirely trust my teacher so if someone else could clarify that would be useful but that was definitely what we were told
) but our teacher told us that parliament is not technically included in government and that you can briefly mention it but shouldn't dwell on it.A modern day example is the current UK government is made up of PM + cabinet + ministers (some MPS but not in the form of parliament) See below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works
I don't entirely trust my teacher so if someone else could clarify that would be useful but that was definitely what we were told
Original post by Freestyle29
I'm happy to be wrong on this (then there will be more to write about!!! ) but our teacher told us that parliament is not technically included in government and that you can briefly mention it but shouldn't dwell on it.
A modern day example is the current UK government is made up of PM + cabinet + ministers (some MPS but not in the form of parliament) See below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works
I don't entirely trust my teacher so if someone else could clarify that would be useful but that was definitely what we were told
) but our teacher told us that parliament is not technically included in government and that you can briefly mention it but shouldn't dwell on it.A modern day example is the current UK government is made up of PM + cabinet + ministers (some MPS but not in the form of parliament) See below:
https://www.gov.uk/government/how-government-works
I don't entirely trust my teacher so if someone else could clarify that would be useful but that was definitely what we were told
I think this is probably why they throw us such general terms, so that we can decide what is most crucial to the question with regards to it. I think if there was a lengthy discussion of Parliament and it fit the question then there would be no problem with it if we use it to support a direct challenge or support for the statement. For example, a question like "With reference to the period 1558-1603, assess how far political and religious rivalries undermined Tudor government" came up, I'd be inclined to commit a chunk of my essay to discussing parliament in terms of rivalry between the radical ministers pushing for the Puritan cause and Elizabeth having to dismiss them etc (as well as rivalries in the council of course, and maybe Northumberland's rivalry with Sir John Forster as a cause of the Northern Rebellion). If the question was more general, you're probably right in saying parliament will be less important. There's always the possibility they could ask us one specifically on parliament.
Could someone possibly throw out some key points to make regarding parliament
Original post by frankielle222
Could someone possibly throw out some key points to make regarding parliament
I'd personally love a question on parliament. The key thing to do with this it to look at the extent to which its power grew and if it infringed the royal prerogative.
In terms of historiography, the key thing to look at is the 'rising tiger' or 'decaying tabby cats' debate. Neale (and Pollard before him, although the idea is owed to Neale's work) pushed for the idea of the 'Puritan Choir' in Commons. According to Neale, the pressure from the Puritan Choir meant that Elizabeth adopted a more radical religious settlement than she would have wished. Pressure, particularly with the growth of Presbyterianism, came in the 1570s and 1580s although Elizabeth dismisses the 1567 parliament for being so disruptive that she used her power of dismissal. Opposition can be seen, according to Neale, on issues of Marriage and Succession (particularly in the 1560s and later on the MQS issue), Religion (pushing for a more Protestant settlement with Peter Turner's 'Bill and Book' etc), Freedom of Speech (the Wentworth brothers), the granting of subsidies (the apparent holding of the 1566 subsidy until the Queen agrees to marry) and of course in the 1590s, the issue of monopolies (particularly in the 1597 and 1603 parliaments).
Norman Jones has criticise Neale's idea, as have others such as Graves, MacCaffrey etc. Jones argues that Neale's hypothesis was based on weak evidence, a 1563 commission which referred to 'our choir' that was actually delegated to discuss the succession bill of 1563. Furthermore, he points out that just 25 MPs of approximately 400 were radically Protestant and just 4 Marian Exiles. Jones points out that Elizabeth remained resolute in her religious settlement and that throughout the reign, the 'Puritan' bills were few and often dealt with by the Commons themselves and the apparent troublemakers were anomalies (ie the Wentworth brothers, Peter was sent to the tower by the Commons in 1576 for being so disruptive).
Other evidence tends to point towards attendance and productivity in Parliament. They were not frequent (just 13 sessions in 45 years where the preceding 30 years had seen 36 parliaments) and attendance was so weak that by 1581, a £20 fine was installed for county members who failed to attend an entire session. Her parliaments were, nevertheless, extremely productive. They passed a total of 432 acts where 162 dealt with private matters (ie, most of it was dull administrative work) and averaged a total of 33 acts per session, a higher average than any other Tudor monarch.
Others, particularly Guy, have looked at the Council's role in parliament. Neale's 'ringleaders' in the Commons were essentially what Guy describes as Cecil's 'men of business' including Thomas Norton. This was more to do with Cecil's astute political acumen in controlling the commons (and possibly even Elizabeth) than anything else. Elton has pointed out that the Commons remained weak and that the House of Lords was still the dominant house (I know they bullied the lower house into granting three subsidies rather than two at one point, but someone will have to remind me of the year).
That leads to my final point, that subsidies were still the key reason for calling Parliament. It's widely accepted that Elizabeth did not like calling them, nor did she want to hear from them. 12 of 13 times she called parliament was to ask for a subsidy to be passed (the exception was 1571 in the 'crisis' session after the Northern Rebellion, return of MQS). Even after the monopolies crisis of 1601, the Queen was granted a quadruple subsidy. I'd probably conclude on saying that Parliament was in opposition at times, but it was a vast minority who dared to do so and the only serious opposition was in the 1590s over the monopolies issue, after which relations were restored (and it was certainly a justified grievance). The Commons, for the most part, remained highly cooperative.
Hope that helps a bit (it was good revision for me at least).
Original post by wjc
I'd personally love a question on parliament. The key thing to do with this it to look at the extent to which its power grew and if it infringed the royal prerogative.
In terms of historiography, the key thing to look at is the 'rising tiger' or 'decaying tabby cats' debate. Neale (and Pollard before him, although the idea is owed to Neale's work) pushed for the idea of the 'Puritan Choir' in Commons. According to Neale, the pressure from the Puritan Choir meant that Elizabeth adopted a more radical religious settlement than she would have wished. Pressure, particularly with the growth of Presbyterianism, came in the 1570s and 1580s although Elizabeth dismisses the 1567 parliament for being so disruptive that she used her power of dismissal. Opposition can be seen, according to Neale, on issues of Marriage and Succession (particularly in the 1560s and later on the MQS issue), Religion (pushing for a more Protestant settlement with Peter Turner's 'Bill and Book' etc), Freedom of Speech (the Wentworth brothers), the granting of subsidies (the apparent holding of the 1566 subsidy until the Queen agrees to marry) and of course in the 1590s, the issue of monopolies (particularly in the 1597 and 1603 parliaments).
Norman Jones has criticise Neale's idea, as have others such as Graves, MacCaffrey etc. Jones argues that Neale's hypothesis was based on weak evidence, a 1563 commission which referred to 'our choir' that was actually delegated to discuss the succession bill of 1563. Furthermore, he points out that just 25 MPs of approximately 400 were radically Protestant and just 4 Marian Exiles. Jones points out that Elizabeth remained resolute in her religious settlement and that throughout the reign, the 'Puritan' bills were few and often dealt with by the Commons themselves and the apparent troublemakers were anomalies (ie the Wentworth brothers, Peter was sent to the tower by the Commons in 1576 for being so disruptive).
Other evidence tends to point towards attendance and productivity in Parliament. They were not frequent (just 13 sessions in 45 years where the preceding 30 years had seen 36 parliaments) and attendance was so weak that by 1581, a £20 fine was installed for county members who failed to attend an entire session. Her parliaments were, nevertheless, extremely productive. They passed a total of 432 acts where 162 dealt with private matters (ie, most of it was dull administrative work) and averaged a total of 33 acts per session, a higher average than any other Tudor monarch.
Others, particularly Guy, have looked at the Council's role in parliament. Neale's 'ringleaders' in the Commons were essentially what Guy describes as Cecil's 'men of business' including Thomas Norton. This was more to do with Cecil's astute political acumen in controlling the commons (and possibly even Elizabeth) than anything else. Elton has pointed out that the Commons remained weak and that the House of Lords was still the dominant house (I know they bullied the lower house into granting three subsidies rather than two at one point, but someone will have to remind me of the year).
That leads to my final point, that subsidies were still the key reason for calling Parliament. It's widely accepted that Elizabeth did not like calling them, nor did she want to hear from them. 12 of 13 times she called parliament was to ask for a subsidy to be passed (the exception was 1571 in the 'crisis' session after the Northern Rebellion, return of MQS). Even after the monopolies crisis of 1601, the Queen was granted a quadruple subsidy. I'd probably conclude on saying that Parliament was in opposition at times, but it was a vast minority who dared to do so and the only serious opposition was in the 1590s over the monopolies issue, after which relations were restored (and it was certainly a justified grievance). The Commons, for the most part, remained highly cooperative.
Hope that helps a bit (it was good revision for me at least).
In terms of historiography, the key thing to look at is the 'rising tiger' or 'decaying tabby cats' debate. Neale (and Pollard before him, although the idea is owed to Neale's work) pushed for the idea of the 'Puritan Choir' in Commons. According to Neale, the pressure from the Puritan Choir meant that Elizabeth adopted a more radical religious settlement than she would have wished. Pressure, particularly with the growth of Presbyterianism, came in the 1570s and 1580s although Elizabeth dismisses the 1567 parliament for being so disruptive that she used her power of dismissal. Opposition can be seen, according to Neale, on issues of Marriage and Succession (particularly in the 1560s and later on the MQS issue), Religion (pushing for a more Protestant settlement with Peter Turner's 'Bill and Book' etc), Freedom of Speech (the Wentworth brothers), the granting of subsidies (the apparent holding of the 1566 subsidy until the Queen agrees to marry) and of course in the 1590s, the issue of monopolies (particularly in the 1597 and 1603 parliaments).
Norman Jones has criticise Neale's idea, as have others such as Graves, MacCaffrey etc. Jones argues that Neale's hypothesis was based on weak evidence, a 1563 commission which referred to 'our choir' that was actually delegated to discuss the succession bill of 1563. Furthermore, he points out that just 25 MPs of approximately 400 were radically Protestant and just 4 Marian Exiles. Jones points out that Elizabeth remained resolute in her religious settlement and that throughout the reign, the 'Puritan' bills were few and often dealt with by the Commons themselves and the apparent troublemakers were anomalies (ie the Wentworth brothers, Peter was sent to the tower by the Commons in 1576 for being so disruptive).
Other evidence tends to point towards attendance and productivity in Parliament. They were not frequent (just 13 sessions in 45 years where the preceding 30 years had seen 36 parliaments) and attendance was so weak that by 1581, a £20 fine was installed for county members who failed to attend an entire session. Her parliaments were, nevertheless, extremely productive. They passed a total of 432 acts where 162 dealt with private matters (ie, most of it was dull administrative work) and averaged a total of 33 acts per session, a higher average than any other Tudor monarch.
Others, particularly Guy, have looked at the Council's role in parliament. Neale's 'ringleaders' in the Commons were essentially what Guy describes as Cecil's 'men of business' including Thomas Norton. This was more to do with Cecil's astute political acumen in controlling the commons (and possibly even Elizabeth) than anything else. Elton has pointed out that the Commons remained weak and that the House of Lords was still the dominant house (I know they bullied the lower house into granting three subsidies rather than two at one point, but someone will have to remind me of the year).
That leads to my final point, that subsidies were still the key reason for calling Parliament. It's widely accepted that Elizabeth did not like calling them, nor did she want to hear from them. 12 of 13 times she called parliament was to ask for a subsidy to be passed (the exception was 1571 in the 'crisis' session after the Northern Rebellion, return of MQS). Even after the monopolies crisis of 1601, the Queen was granted a quadruple subsidy. I'd probably conclude on saying that Parliament was in opposition at times, but it was a vast minority who dared to do so and the only serious opposition was in the 1590s over the monopolies issue, after which relations were restored (and it was certainly a justified grievance). The Commons, for the most part, remained highly cooperative.
Hope that helps a bit (it was good revision for me at least).
Thanks but I couldn't think of anything worse than a question on this, praying for religious settlement and later years
Hey everyone, I had two essays marked by my teacher and I'm going to post them as two separate posts. While I wasn't given a specific mark, I was told that they were definitely in mark band 5 (ranging from 38-45 marks), so hopefully it'll help for your essays. I should warn you that most of my historiography is made-up, although there are some that are real. My teacher says that they flow so well though, that they shouldn't cause a real problem, and the Historians that I have used are all appropriate. Some areas may look a little thin on the ground, but remember that this is typed, whereas the hand-written essay looks much longer and more detailed, and yes - before you ask, this was done in timed conditions, where I spent exactly 45 minutes on my response.
'Anglo-Spanish relations deteriorated in the years 1568 to 1588 largely as a result of the actions of the English.'
Assess the validity of this view.
There were a number of factors that caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations - chief among them, the actions of the English. This includes the 1568 Genoese Loan debacle, combined with British privateering, particularly with regard to the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa, and the expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584. Historian Susan Doran goes to far as to suggest that Elizabeth's foreign policy decisions 'alienated' the Spanish - an argument that I agree with,
On the one hand, for example, British privateering was crucial to asserting Elizabeth's authority in expanding her rule over territory in the New World and boosting trade imports and exports, which brought her into conflict with Spanish interests. The 1562 expedition of Sir John Hawkins to the West Indies was the beginning of this, as he laid claim to new territory in the name of Elizabeth, furthered by the Sir Francis Drake's later stealing of Spanish silver in 1572 and the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa, in which Hawkins stole slaves from the Spanish. Wilson believes this was a 'bold and risky move', pointing to the fact that it antagonised King Philip II of Spain. McCaffrey, however, disagrees, suggesting that it was a 'natural course of action', which was regularly undertaken by both English and Spanish privateers who were acting in their own interests, and not on behalf of their ruler. I believe that McCaffrey's viewpoint is the most convincing, as Philip was clearly irritated by these actions - evident from his subsequent actions against Elizabeth by supporting Catholic plots to overthrow her.
The Genoese Loan of 1568 was crucial also, as Philip relied upon it in order to pay the Duke of Alva and his troops the 400,000 florins that he owed them, which was necessary to continue his military campaign in the Netherlands. Elizabeth, however, in a move described by John Guy as 'unprecedented and dangerous', seized the loan on the advice of her Secretary of State, Sir William Cecil, which furthered her foreign policy in ensuring that the Netherlands remained autonomous. This greatly antagonised Philip, causing his later bankruptcy in 1575, which facilitated the massacre of innocent Protestants in Antwerp by unpaid Spanish soldiers in 1576.
The expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584 was a move by Elizabeth that Haigh argues was 'controversial' as it distanced her from the Spanish, although Pollard disagrees, suggesting that it was 'a necessary measure' following Spanish involvement in the Throckmorton plot of 1583. I agree with Pollard, as the danger posed by Spain was very real, but this greatly antagonised Philip, evidenced by his sending of the Spanish Armada in 1585.
On the other hand, however, the deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations can be primarily attributed to the actions of Spain. For example, their aggressive treatment of Dutch Protestants who rebelled in 1566 by sending a Spanish army to engage in military action in 1567 was a move that Wernham argues 'gave Elizabeth no choice but to intervene', thus causing the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, especially with her signing of the Treaty of Nonsuch in 1585 against Spain, in which she openly declared support for the Dutch rebels.
Also, the involvement of Philip II in assisting Mary Queen of Scots in the respective Catholic plots of 1571 (Ridolfi), 1583 (Throckmorton) and 1586 (Babington) 'were intended to dramatically undermine Elizabeth's authority on the international stage', according to Doran. Jones disagrees with Doran, however, instead suggesting that Philip was simply seeking to 'further the spread of Catholicism in Europe to serve his own interests'. I agree with Doran, as although his support for Mary would further the spread of Catholicism, it would antagonise and undermine Elizabeth far more, which would serve as revenge for losses incurred from the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa and the Genoese Loan of the same year.
Finally, the 1585 seizure of English ships in the Atlantic by Spain can be viewed as a direct contributor to the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, as Philip cleared the way for his Armada to be sent, which would result in open conflict in 1588. This was 'premeditated revenge' according to MacCullough, although Duffy disagrees, suggesting instead that it was simply a 'direct response' to the expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584. I agree with MacCullough, as this was clearly a culmination in the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, as evidenced by the previous quarrels between England and Spain in prior years.
In conclusion, I find the views of Doran, Wilson and Guy to be the most convincing, as events caused by the English clearly repudiated Philip's authority and policy, leading to the events that Philip instigated, such as support for Mary Queen of Scots, culminating in full-scale war in 1588.
Teacher comments:
- Try to include a contrasting argument from another Historian in the introduction.
- Could have also mentioned the 1584 Treaty of Joinville
- Conclusion is very brief , clearly due to time constraints, although the rest of the essay makes up for this - could be expanded upon by mentioning alternative arguments.
- Historiography flows very well - even though some are made-up, this does not seem at all obvious - Historians used are appropriate.
- Solid structure and content - very detailed with good use of dates and names of specific events/people.
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
'Anglo-Spanish relations deteriorated in the years 1568 to 1588 largely as a result of the actions of the English.'
Assess the validity of this view.
There were a number of factors that caused a deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations - chief among them, the actions of the English. This includes the 1568 Genoese Loan debacle, combined with British privateering, particularly with regard to the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa, and the expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584. Historian Susan Doran goes to far as to suggest that Elizabeth's foreign policy decisions 'alienated' the Spanish - an argument that I agree with,
On the one hand, for example, British privateering was crucial to asserting Elizabeth's authority in expanding her rule over territory in the New World and boosting trade imports and exports, which brought her into conflict with Spanish interests. The 1562 expedition of Sir John Hawkins to the West Indies was the beginning of this, as he laid claim to new territory in the name of Elizabeth, furthered by the Sir Francis Drake's later stealing of Spanish silver in 1572 and the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa, in which Hawkins stole slaves from the Spanish. Wilson believes this was a 'bold and risky move', pointing to the fact that it antagonised King Philip II of Spain. McCaffrey, however, disagrees, suggesting that it was a 'natural course of action', which was regularly undertaken by both English and Spanish privateers who were acting in their own interests, and not on behalf of their ruler. I believe that McCaffrey's viewpoint is the most convincing, as Philip was clearly irritated by these actions - evident from his subsequent actions against Elizabeth by supporting Catholic plots to overthrow her.
The Genoese Loan of 1568 was crucial also, as Philip relied upon it in order to pay the Duke of Alva and his troops the 400,000 florins that he owed them, which was necessary to continue his military campaign in the Netherlands. Elizabeth, however, in a move described by John Guy as 'unprecedented and dangerous', seized the loan on the advice of her Secretary of State, Sir William Cecil, which furthered her foreign policy in ensuring that the Netherlands remained autonomous. This greatly antagonised Philip, causing his later bankruptcy in 1575, which facilitated the massacre of innocent Protestants in Antwerp by unpaid Spanish soldiers in 1576.
The expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584 was a move by Elizabeth that Haigh argues was 'controversial' as it distanced her from the Spanish, although Pollard disagrees, suggesting that it was 'a necessary measure' following Spanish involvement in the Throckmorton plot of 1583. I agree with Pollard, as the danger posed by Spain was very real, but this greatly antagonised Philip, evidenced by his sending of the Spanish Armada in 1585.
On the other hand, however, the deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations can be primarily attributed to the actions of Spain. For example, their aggressive treatment of Dutch Protestants who rebelled in 1566 by sending a Spanish army to engage in military action in 1567 was a move that Wernham argues 'gave Elizabeth no choice but to intervene', thus causing the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, especially with her signing of the Treaty of Nonsuch in 1585 against Spain, in which she openly declared support for the Dutch rebels.
Also, the involvement of Philip II in assisting Mary Queen of Scots in the respective Catholic plots of 1571 (Ridolfi), 1583 (Throckmorton) and 1586 (Babington) 'were intended to dramatically undermine Elizabeth's authority on the international stage', according to Doran. Jones disagrees with Doran, however, instead suggesting that Philip was simply seeking to 'further the spread of Catholicism in Europe to serve his own interests'. I agree with Doran, as although his support for Mary would further the spread of Catholicism, it would antagonise and undermine Elizabeth far more, which would serve as revenge for losses incurred from the 1568 Battle of San Juan de Ulloa and the Genoese Loan of the same year.
Finally, the 1585 seizure of English ships in the Atlantic by Spain can be viewed as a direct contributor to the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, as Philip cleared the way for his Armada to be sent, which would result in open conflict in 1588. This was 'premeditated revenge' according to MacCullough, although Duffy disagrees, suggesting instead that it was simply a 'direct response' to the expulsion of the Spanish ambassador in 1584. I agree with MacCullough, as this was clearly a culmination in the deterioration of Anglo-Spanish relations, as evidenced by the previous quarrels between England and Spain in prior years.
In conclusion, I find the views of Doran, Wilson and Guy to be the most convincing, as events caused by the English clearly repudiated Philip's authority and policy, leading to the events that Philip instigated, such as support for Mary Queen of Scots, culminating in full-scale war in 1588.
Teacher comments:
- Try to include a contrasting argument from another Historian in the introduction.
- Could have also mentioned the 1584 Treaty of Joinville
- Conclusion is very brief , clearly due to time constraints, although the rest of the essay makes up for this - could be expanded upon by mentioning alternative arguments.
- Historiography flows very well - even though some are made-up, this does not seem at all obvious - Historians used are appropriate.
- Solid structure and content - very detailed with good use of dates and names of specific events/people.
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
(edited 8 years ago)
'To what extent did royal authority decline in the years 1547 to 1558?'
Royal authority is the respect for the power and legitimacy of the incumbent monarch. This authority arguably heavily declined during the reigns of Edward VI in 1547 to 1553, and his successor, Mary I, in 1553 to 1558, with John Guy describing the Mid-Tudor period as a time of 'crisis due to the rebellions that took place in 1549 and 1554, along with the succession crisis in 1553.
On the one hand, for example, the Western and Kett's rebellions of 1549 were extremely damaging to the royal authority of Edward VI's administration, serving as a direct attack on religious and social reform that was being implemented. The Western Rebellion was in direct opposition to the introduction of the 1549 Act of Uniformity and English Book of Common Prayer, written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, as the rebels preferred the Latin service that they had grown accustomed to under the reign of Henry VIII. Jones agrees that this was an example of 'a repudiation of Edward VI's religious reforms, and by extension, his royal authority.' Hoak, however, disagrees, instead arguing that the rebellion 'focused solely on a desire for religious change, and did not directly attack Edward or the Duke of Somerset.'
The Wyatt's rebellion of 1554 was also extremely damaging to the royal of authority of Mary I. As a devout Catholic, she sought to uphold Papal Supremacy and allied herself in marriage to the Catholic King Philip II of Spain. Protestant rebels were greatly frustrated by this, and directly marched on London. However, Haigh disagrees that the rebellion posed a threat, suggesting that Mary's 'decisive action' in raising the sole bridge into London allowed her to swiftly deal with the rebellion before it caused any real damage to her royal authority. Guy disagrees, arguing instead that the rebellion was a 'direct challenge to the religious reforms of the Marian administration, and the Catholic union with Spain', which he suggests greatly undermined the authority of Mary - an argument that I agree with.
The 'Devise' implemented by the Duke of Northumberland in 1553 can also be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the legitimate Catholic successor, Mary Tudor, by replacing her with the illegitimate Protestant cousin of Edward VI. This is agreed by Loach to be 'Northumberland's calculated action' in an attempt to seize more power for his family, as Lady Jane Grey was his daughter-in-law. Jones, however, disagrees, instead suggesting that 'Edward was pulling the strings' in a deliberate attempt to prevent a transition to Catholicism following his death by undermining Mary's legitimacy and royal authority.
However, on the other hand, royal authority during the Mid-Tudor period can be argued to have increased. For example, Duffy states that ' by 1558, England had become a Catholic country.'; an agreement that Mary's royal authority had increased over that of Edward's, evidenced by the successful transition from Protestantism to Catholicism. Wernham supports this assertion in his argument that 'Catholicism had been widely accepted with very little major opposition', suggesting that Mary was respected for being the legitimate ruler of England.
Further to this, Mary's revival of the Heresy Laws in 1553 allowed her to 'clamp down' on attempts to undermine her royal authority, as evidenced by her burning of 274 Protestants at the stake, which would go on to earn her the title of 'Bloody Mary'. John Guy agrees that this 'asserted her royal authority through the use of an iron fist', although Doran disagrees, suggesting that it 'inspired fear and caused further instability', evident in the 1554 Wyatt's rebellion which attempted to undermine her royal authority. Contemporary John Foxe, in his 'Book of Martyrs' during the 1560s, would later greatly criticise Mary for her implementation of this 'barbaric' policy, further undermining her authority.
Finally, the Edwardian administration can be viewed to have regained royal authority in the latter part of the reign. This is evident in the Duke of Northumberland's successful quashing of the Kett's rebellion in 1549, which thanks to his actions, Duffy agrees 'posed no real threat to Edward', supported by MacCaffrey, who suggests that it was 'a direct attack on the failures of the Duke of Somerset to deal with agrarian grievances'. The fact that Northumberland successfully replaced the comparatively unsuccessful Duke of Somerset in a coup supported by the regency council in 1550 is also clear evidence of the regaining of royal authority during Edward VI's reign.
In conclusion, I find the views of Guy, Doran and Jones to be the most convincing, as the reigns of Edward and Mary were fraught with rebellion and instability which is clear evidence against royal authority being upheld, indicating a strong decline over the period, despite an overall effective religious policy being implemented and accepted at the end of both reigns. Political opposition within the Edwardian administration from the regency council also points to a decline in royal authority, particularly due to the actions of the Duke of Somerset. As a result, I believe that a decline in royal authority during this period is clearly apparent.
Teacher comments:
- Try link back to the question at the end of your first point - only needs 1 sentence
- Good, detailed historical knowledge with key dates, names and events used correctly
- Solid structure
- Effective use of historiographical debate to advance the argument
- Stronger, more detailed conclusion than previously
- Could have added Susan Doran statistic about 80% Catholic/ 20% Protestant population by the end of Mary's reign
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
Royal authority is the respect for the power and legitimacy of the incumbent monarch. This authority arguably heavily declined during the reigns of Edward VI in 1547 to 1553, and his successor, Mary I, in 1553 to 1558, with John Guy describing the Mid-Tudor period as a time of 'crisis due to the rebellions that took place in 1549 and 1554, along with the succession crisis in 1553.
On the one hand, for example, the Western and Kett's rebellions of 1549 were extremely damaging to the royal authority of Edward VI's administration, serving as a direct attack on religious and social reform that was being implemented. The Western Rebellion was in direct opposition to the introduction of the 1549 Act of Uniformity and English Book of Common Prayer, written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, as the rebels preferred the Latin service that they had grown accustomed to under the reign of Henry VIII. Jones agrees that this was an example of 'a repudiation of Edward VI's religious reforms, and by extension, his royal authority.' Hoak, however, disagrees, instead arguing that the rebellion 'focused solely on a desire for religious change, and did not directly attack Edward or the Duke of Somerset.'
The Wyatt's rebellion of 1554 was also extremely damaging to the royal of authority of Mary I. As a devout Catholic, she sought to uphold Papal Supremacy and allied herself in marriage to the Catholic King Philip II of Spain. Protestant rebels were greatly frustrated by this, and directly marched on London. However, Haigh disagrees that the rebellion posed a threat, suggesting that Mary's 'decisive action' in raising the sole bridge into London allowed her to swiftly deal with the rebellion before it caused any real damage to her royal authority. Guy disagrees, arguing instead that the rebellion was a 'direct challenge to the religious reforms of the Marian administration, and the Catholic union with Spain', which he suggests greatly undermined the authority of Mary - an argument that I agree with.
The 'Devise' implemented by the Duke of Northumberland in 1553 can also be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the legitimate Catholic successor, Mary Tudor, by replacing her with the illegitimate Protestant cousin of Edward VI. This is agreed by Loach to be 'Northumberland's calculated action' in an attempt to seize more power for his family, as Lady Jane Grey was his daughter-in-law. Jones, however, disagrees, instead suggesting that 'Edward was pulling the strings' in a deliberate attempt to prevent a transition to Catholicism following his death by undermining Mary's legitimacy and royal authority.
However, on the other hand, royal authority during the Mid-Tudor period can be argued to have increased. For example, Duffy states that ' by 1558, England had become a Catholic country.'; an agreement that Mary's royal authority had increased over that of Edward's, evidenced by the successful transition from Protestantism to Catholicism. Wernham supports this assertion in his argument that 'Catholicism had been widely accepted with very little major opposition', suggesting that Mary was respected for being the legitimate ruler of England.
Further to this, Mary's revival of the Heresy Laws in 1553 allowed her to 'clamp down' on attempts to undermine her royal authority, as evidenced by her burning of 274 Protestants at the stake, which would go on to earn her the title of 'Bloody Mary'. John Guy agrees that this 'asserted her royal authority through the use of an iron fist', although Doran disagrees, suggesting that it 'inspired fear and caused further instability', evident in the 1554 Wyatt's rebellion which attempted to undermine her royal authority. Contemporary John Foxe, in his 'Book of Martyrs' during the 1560s, would later greatly criticise Mary for her implementation of this 'barbaric' policy, further undermining her authority.
Finally, the Edwardian administration can be viewed to have regained royal authority in the latter part of the reign. This is evident in the Duke of Northumberland's successful quashing of the Kett's rebellion in 1549, which thanks to his actions, Duffy agrees 'posed no real threat to Edward', supported by MacCaffrey, who suggests that it was 'a direct attack on the failures of the Duke of Somerset to deal with agrarian grievances'. The fact that Northumberland successfully replaced the comparatively unsuccessful Duke of Somerset in a coup supported by the regency council in 1550 is also clear evidence of the regaining of royal authority during Edward VI's reign.
In conclusion, I find the views of Guy, Doran and Jones to be the most convincing, as the reigns of Edward and Mary were fraught with rebellion and instability which is clear evidence against royal authority being upheld, indicating a strong decline over the period, despite an overall effective religious policy being implemented and accepted at the end of both reigns. Political opposition within the Edwardian administration from the regency council also points to a decline in royal authority, particularly due to the actions of the Duke of Somerset. As a result, I believe that a decline in royal authority during this period is clearly apparent.
Teacher comments:
- Try link back to the question at the end of your first point - only needs 1 sentence
- Good, detailed historical knowledge with key dates, names and events used correctly
- Solid structure
- Effective use of historiographical debate to advance the argument
- Stronger, more detailed conclusion than previously
- Could have added Susan Doran statistic about 80% Catholic/ 20% Protestant population by the end of Mary's reign
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Causton97
'To what extent did royal authority decline in the years 1547 to 1558?'
Royal authority is the respect for the power and legitimacy of the incumbent monarch. This authority arguably heavily declined during the reigns of Edward VI in 1547 to 1553, and his successor, Mary I, in 1553 to 1558, with John Guy describing the Mid-Tudor period as a time of 'crisis due to the rebellions that took place in 1549 and 1554, along with the succession crisis in 1553.
On the one hand, for example, the Western and Kett's rebellions of 1549 were extremely damaging to the royal authority of Edward VI's administration, serving as a direct attack on religious and social reform that was being implemented. The Western Rebellion was in direct opposition to the introduction of the 1549 Act of Uniformity and English Book of Common Prayer, written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, as the rebels preferred the Latin service that they had grown accustomed to under the reign of Henry VIII. Jones agrees that this was an example of 'a repudiation of Edward VI's religious reforms, and by extension, his royal authority.' Hoak, however, disagrees, instead arguing that the rebellion 'focused solely on a desire for religious change, and did not directly attack Edward or the Duke of Somerset.'
The Wyatt's rebellion of 1554 was also extremely damaging to the royal of authority of Mary I. As a devout Catholic, she sought to uphold Papal Supremacy and allied herself in marriage to the Catholic King Philip II of Spain. Protestant rebels were greatly frustrated by this, and directly marched on London. However, Haigh disagrees that the rebellion posed a threat, suggesting that Mary's 'decisive action' in raising the sole bridge into London allowed her to swiftly deal with the rebellion before it caused any real damage to her royal authority. Guy disagrees, arguing instead that the rebellion was a 'direct challenge to the religious reforms of the Marian administration, and the Catholic union with Spain', which he suggests greatly undermined the authority of Mary - an argument that I agree with.
The 'Devise' implemented by the Duke of Northumberland in 1553 can also be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the legitimate Catholic successor, Mary Tudor, by replacing her with the illegitimate Protestant cousin of Edward VI. This is agreed by Loach to be 'Northumberland's calculated action' in an attempt to seize more power for his family, as Lady Jane Grey was his daughter-in-law. Jones, however, disagrees, instead suggesting that 'Edward was pulling the strings' in a deliberate attempt to prevent a transition to Catholicism following his death by undermining Mary's legitimacy and royal authority.
However, on the other hand, royal authority during the Mid-Tudor period can be argued to have increased. For example, Duffy states that ' by 1558, England had become a Catholic country.'; an agreement that Mary's royal authority had increased over that of Edward's, evidenced by the successful transition from Protestantism to Catholicism. Wernham supports this assertion in his argument that 'Catholicism had been widely accepted with very little major opposition', suggesting that Mary was respected for being the legitimate ruler of England.
Further to this, Mary's revival of the Heresy Laws in 1553 allowed her to 'clamp down' on attempts to undermine her royal authority, as evidenced by her burning of 274 Protestants at the stake, which would go on to earn her the title of 'Bloody Mary'. John Guy agrees that this 'asserted her royal authority through the use of an iron fist', although Doran disagrees, suggesting that it 'inspired fear and caused further instability', evident in the 1554 Wyatt's rebellion which attempted to undermine her royal authority. Contemporary John Foxe, in his 'Book of Martyrs' during the 1560s, would later greatly criticise Mary for her implementation of this 'barbaric' policy, further undermining her authority.
Finally, the Edwardian administration can be viewed to have regained royal authority in the latter part of the reign. This is evident in the Duke of Northumberland's successful quashing of the Kett's rebellion in 1549, which thanks to his actions, Duffy agrees 'posed no real threat to Edward', supported by MacCaffrey, who suggests that it was 'a direct attack on the failures of the Duke of Somerset to deal with agrarian grievances'. The fact that Northumberland successfully replaced the comparatively unsuccessful Duke of Somerset in a coup supported by the regency council in 1550 is also clear evidence of the regaining of royal authority during Edward VI's reign.
In conclusion, I find the views of Guy, Doran and James to be the most convincing, as the reigns of Edward and Mary were fraught with rebellion and instability which is clear evidence against royal authority being upheld, indicating a strong decline over the period, despite an overall effective religious policy being implemented and accepted at the end of both reigns. Political opposition within the Edwardian administration from the regency council also points to a decline in royal authority, particularly due to the actions of the Duke of Somerset. As a result, I believe that a decline in royal authority during this period is clearly apparent.
Teacher comments:
- Try link back to the question at the end of your first point - only needs 1 sentence
- Good, detailed historical knowledge with key dates, names and events used correctly
- Solid structure
- Effective use of historiographical debate to advance the argument
- Stronger, more detailed conclusion than previously
- Could have added Susan Doran statistic about 80% Catholic/ 20% Protestant population by the end of Mary's reign
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
Royal authority is the respect for the power and legitimacy of the incumbent monarch. This authority arguably heavily declined during the reigns of Edward VI in 1547 to 1553, and his successor, Mary I, in 1553 to 1558, with John Guy describing the Mid-Tudor period as a time of 'crisis due to the rebellions that took place in 1549 and 1554, along with the succession crisis in 1553.
On the one hand, for example, the Western and Kett's rebellions of 1549 were extremely damaging to the royal authority of Edward VI's administration, serving as a direct attack on religious and social reform that was being implemented. The Western Rebellion was in direct opposition to the introduction of the 1549 Act of Uniformity and English Book of Common Prayer, written by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, as the rebels preferred the Latin service that they had grown accustomed to under the reign of Henry VIII. Jones agrees that this was an example of 'a repudiation of Edward VI's religious reforms, and by extension, his royal authority.' Hoak, however, disagrees, instead arguing that the rebellion 'focused solely on a desire for religious change, and did not directly attack Edward or the Duke of Somerset.'
The Wyatt's rebellion of 1554 was also extremely damaging to the royal of authority of Mary I. As a devout Catholic, she sought to uphold Papal Supremacy and allied herself in marriage to the Catholic King Philip II of Spain. Protestant rebels were greatly frustrated by this, and directly marched on London. However, Haigh disagrees that the rebellion posed a threat, suggesting that Mary's 'decisive action' in raising the sole bridge into London allowed her to swiftly deal with the rebellion before it caused any real damage to her royal authority. Guy disagrees, arguing instead that the rebellion was a 'direct challenge to the religious reforms of the Marian administration, and the Catholic union with Spain', which he suggests greatly undermined the authority of Mary - an argument that I agree with.
The 'Devise' implemented by the Duke of Northumberland in 1553 can also be seen as a deliberate attempt to undermine the authority of the legitimate Catholic successor, Mary Tudor, by replacing her with the illegitimate Protestant cousin of Edward VI. This is agreed by Loach to be 'Northumberland's calculated action' in an attempt to seize more power for his family, as Lady Jane Grey was his daughter-in-law. Jones, however, disagrees, instead suggesting that 'Edward was pulling the strings' in a deliberate attempt to prevent a transition to Catholicism following his death by undermining Mary's legitimacy and royal authority.
However, on the other hand, royal authority during the Mid-Tudor period can be argued to have increased. For example, Duffy states that ' by 1558, England had become a Catholic country.'; an agreement that Mary's royal authority had increased over that of Edward's, evidenced by the successful transition from Protestantism to Catholicism. Wernham supports this assertion in his argument that 'Catholicism had been widely accepted with very little major opposition', suggesting that Mary was respected for being the legitimate ruler of England.
Further to this, Mary's revival of the Heresy Laws in 1553 allowed her to 'clamp down' on attempts to undermine her royal authority, as evidenced by her burning of 274 Protestants at the stake, which would go on to earn her the title of 'Bloody Mary'. John Guy agrees that this 'asserted her royal authority through the use of an iron fist', although Doran disagrees, suggesting that it 'inspired fear and caused further instability', evident in the 1554 Wyatt's rebellion which attempted to undermine her royal authority. Contemporary John Foxe, in his 'Book of Martyrs' during the 1560s, would later greatly criticise Mary for her implementation of this 'barbaric' policy, further undermining her authority.
Finally, the Edwardian administration can be viewed to have regained royal authority in the latter part of the reign. This is evident in the Duke of Northumberland's successful quashing of the Kett's rebellion in 1549, which thanks to his actions, Duffy agrees 'posed no real threat to Edward', supported by MacCaffrey, who suggests that it was 'a direct attack on the failures of the Duke of Somerset to deal with agrarian grievances'. The fact that Northumberland successfully replaced the comparatively unsuccessful Duke of Somerset in a coup supported by the regency council in 1550 is also clear evidence of the regaining of royal authority during Edward VI's reign.
In conclusion, I find the views of Guy, Doran and James to be the most convincing, as the reigns of Edward and Mary were fraught with rebellion and instability which is clear evidence against royal authority being upheld, indicating a strong decline over the period, despite an overall effective religious policy being implemented and accepted at the end of both reigns. Political opposition within the Edwardian administration from the regency council also points to a decline in royal authority, particularly due to the actions of the Duke of Somerset. As a result, I believe that a decline in royal authority during this period is clearly apparent.
Teacher comments:
- Try link back to the question at the end of your first point - only needs 1 sentence
- Good, detailed historical knowledge with key dates, names and events used correctly
- Solid structure
- Effective use of historiographical debate to advance the argument
- Stronger, more detailed conclusion than previously
- Could have added Susan Doran statistic about 80% Catholic/ 20% Protestant population by the end of Mary's reign
AWARDED LEVEL 5 (38-45 marks)
How would you normally set out your plans for your essay's, the plans are the only thing I sometimes struggle with when answering a question?
Original post by nayilgervinho
How would you normally set out your plans for your essay's, the plans are the only thing I sometimes struggle with when answering a question?
When it comes to my plans when I'm actually writing my essay, I take two minutes out to just quickly draw a small table on the question paper and list three reasons on either side agreeing or disagreeing with the question.
So if we use this question as an example:
'Royal authority declined in the years 1558-1588' Assess the validity of this view.
My detailed plan would be like this:
Agree:
1.) Opposition to religious settlement - Presbyterian Bill and book campaigns in the 1584 and 1586 Parliaments (Anthony Cope), 1572 Admonition to Parliament (Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field) aimed to reform Elizabeth's religious settlement by changing the Book of Common Prayer to a more radical Genevan-style one and abolishing bishops to ensure equality as there would be no hierarchy in the Church.
2.) Pressure from Parliament over succession - resulted in Elizabeth forcing herself to engage in marriage negotiations in 1568-1578 with the Duke of Anjou, and in 1579-1583 with the Duke of Alencon. While she upheld her royal prerogative in the end, this arguably caused her to lose royal authority by giving in to pressure from MP's in the House of Commons
3.) Catholic plots against Elizabeth in 1571 (Ridolfi), 1583 (Throckmorton) and 1586 (Babington) undermined her royal authority by attempting to replace Elizabeth with Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.
Disagree:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots was executed in 1587, causing Elizabeth's royal authority to increase as she eliminated her primary challenger to the throne of England. This increased security and stability for Elizabeth, thus consolidating her royal authority.
2,) Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 boosted Elizabeth's royal authority by significantly reducing the threat of a potential Spanish invasion by King Philip's forces and showed her power on the international stage.
3.) Elizabeth's royal authority arguably increased due to her effectiveness in swiftly replacing Archbishop Edmund Grindal (who had Puritan tendencies) in 1577 with John Whitgift on a provisional basis after he had failed to comply with her order to suppress prophesying in 1576. Notably John Alymer, Bishop of London was made head of the ecclesiastical commission to suppress prophesying, also in 1577.
In the exam, I would shorten it to this:
Agree:
1.) Religious oppostion - Admonition to Parliament 72, BIll and book 84,86 Cartwright, Wilcox, Field
2.) Succession 68-78 Anjou 79-83 Alencon
3.) Catholic Plots - 71 R., 83 T., 86 B.
Disagree:
1.) MQS dead 87
2.) Armada Spain 88
3.) Grindal replaced with Whitgift 77, John Alymer ecclesiastical commission 77, suppress prophesying 76
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Causton97
When it comes to my plans when I'm actually writing my essay, I take two minutes out to just quickly draw a small table on the question paper and list three reasons on either side agreeing or disagreeing with the question.
So if we use this question as an example:
'Royal authority declined in the years 1558-1588' Assess the validity of this view.
My detailed plan would be like this:
Agree:
1.) Opposition to religious settlement - Presbyterian Bill and book campaigns in the 1584 and 1586 Parliaments (Anthony Cope), 1572 Admonition to Parliament (Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field) aimed to reform Elizabeth's religious settlement by changing the Book of Common Prayer to a more radical Genevan-style one and abolishing bishops to ensure equality as there would be no hierarchy in the Church.
2.) Pressure from Parliament over succession - resulted in Elizabeth forcing herself to engage in marriage negotiations in 1568-1578 with the Duke of Anjou, and in 1579-1583 with the Duke of Alencon. While she upheld her royal prerogative in the end, this arguably caused her to lose royal authority by giving in to pressure from MP's in the House of Commons
3.) Catholic plots against Elizabeth in 1571 (Ridolfi), 1583 (Throckmorton) and 1586 (Babington) undermined her royal authority by attempting to replace Elizabeth with Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.
Disagree:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots was executed in 1587, causing Elizabeth's royal authority to increase as she eliminated her primary challenger to the throne of England. This increased security and stability for Elizabeth, thus consolidating her royal authority.
2,) Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 boosted Elizabeth's royal authority by significantly reducing the threat of a potential Spanish invasion by King Philip's forces and showed her power on the international stage.
3.) Elizabeth's royal authority arguably increased due to her effectiveness in swiftly replacing Archbishop Edmund Grindal (who had Puritan tendencies) in 1577 with John Whitgift on a provisional basis after he had failed to comply with her order to suppress prophesying in 1576. Notably John Alymer, Bishop of London was made head of the ecclesiastical commission to suppress prophesying, also in 1577.
In the exam, I would shorten it to this:
Agree:
1.) Religious oppostion - Admonition to Parliament 72, BIll and book 84,86 Cartwright, Wilcox, Field
2.) Succession 68-78 Anjou 79-83 Alencon
3.) Catholic Plots - 71 R., 83 T., 86 B.
Disagree:
1.) MQS dead 87
2.) Armada Spain 88
3.) Grindal replaced with Whitgift 87, John Alymer ecclesiastical commission 87, suppress prophesying 86
So if we use this question as an example:
'Royal authority declined in the years 1558-1588' Assess the validity of this view.
My detailed plan would be like this:
Agree:
1.) Opposition to religious settlement - Presbyterian Bill and book campaigns in the 1584 and 1586 Parliaments (Anthony Cope), 1572 Admonition to Parliament (Thomas Cartwright, Thomas Wilcox and John Field) aimed to reform Elizabeth's religious settlement by changing the Book of Common Prayer to a more radical Genevan-style one and abolishing bishops to ensure equality as there would be no hierarchy in the Church.
2.) Pressure from Parliament over succession - resulted in Elizabeth forcing herself to engage in marriage negotiations in 1568-1578 with the Duke of Anjou, and in 1579-1583 with the Duke of Alencon. While she upheld her royal prerogative in the end, this arguably caused her to lose royal authority by giving in to pressure from MP's in the House of Commons
3.) Catholic plots against Elizabeth in 1571 (Ridolfi), 1583 (Throckmorton) and 1586 (Babington) undermined her royal authority by attempting to replace Elizabeth with Catholic Mary Queen of Scots.
Disagree:
1.) Mary Queen of Scots was executed in 1587, causing Elizabeth's royal authority to increase as she eliminated her primary challenger to the throne of England. This increased security and stability for Elizabeth, thus consolidating her royal authority.
2,) Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 boosted Elizabeth's royal authority by significantly reducing the threat of a potential Spanish invasion by King Philip's forces and showed her power on the international stage.
3.) Elizabeth's royal authority arguably increased due to her effectiveness in swiftly replacing Archbishop Edmund Grindal (who had Puritan tendencies) in 1577 with John Whitgift on a provisional basis after he had failed to comply with her order to suppress prophesying in 1576. Notably John Alymer, Bishop of London was made head of the ecclesiastical commission to suppress prophesying, also in 1577.
In the exam, I would shorten it to this:
Agree:
1.) Religious oppostion - Admonition to Parliament 72, BIll and book 84,86 Cartwright, Wilcox, Field
2.) Succession 68-78 Anjou 79-83 Alencon
3.) Catholic Plots - 71 R., 83 T., 86 B.
Disagree:
1.) MQS dead 87
2.) Armada Spain 88
3.) Grindal replaced with Whitgift 87, John Alymer ecclesiastical commission 87, suppress prophesying 86
Thanks, this does help as when doing the plans I don't normally know hot to really shorten them to remember them, maybe some word association. How would you fit your quotes into your paln?
Original post by nayilgervinho
Thanks, this does help as when doing the plans I don't normally know hot to really shorten them to remember them, maybe some word association. How would you fit your quotes into your paln?
Word association is a good idea, although I've got a timeline that I've basically memorised now and I get friends and family members to test me on it all the time, so things tend to sink in naturally from repetition.
Here's a link to it (this one covers Elizabeth, but I'm working on one for Ed/Mary) - https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1hx4zhrlfwkT2ZDUkQzWFFHTXc/view?usp=sharing
As for quotes... it's kind of embarrassing but I tend to make them up as I go along...
(but in the words of David Tennant - "I do it brilliantly")I have a selection of names of different historians memorised and a general understanding of what they're arguing... it seems to work. I'm going to properly memorise quotes over the weekend though and add them to my essay plans. I don't want to rely solely on completely fabricated quotes in the actual exam! :P
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- AQA as level economics 2015 specimen paper 2
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- SOLVED - 2024 STEP III and Chemistry Paper 3 Same Date (also STEP II on a saturday?)
- AQA Level 2 Further Maths GCSE Papers
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Changes to the A-Level course?
- AQA GCSE History Paper 2 (8145/2) - 7th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 8702/1P - 25 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- aqa hisrory
- AQA GCSE Physical Education Paper 2 (8582/2) - 8th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Go ahead in time as far as possible
- WJEC GCSE Welsh Exam - 8th June [Exam Chat]
- KCL Postgrad Accommodation needed
- 1000+ A2-Level Biology Exam Questions
- Gcse past papers
- Quizlet flashcards
- gcse predictions
- Help for year 10s
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 day ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 days ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 1 (9HI0 1A-1H) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
History Edexcel A level Britain Transformed and USA Conformity and ChallengeLast reply 3 months ago
AQA A-level History USA: Making of a Superpower (7042/1K) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 3 months ago
AQA A Level History - Making of Modern Britain(2S) Exam Chat - 9th June 2023
