AQA A2 HISTORY: The Triumph of Elizabeth, 1547-1603

Honestly, as Alex said, I'm probably feeling just as nervous about this exam as anyone. I don't feel like I know much, and it's only through prompting questions in which I'm forcing myself to form an opinion on matters that I actually delve into my knowledge and can then see how much/little I know. What we're doing by asking opinions on Elizabeths this or that I guess is just a further form of revision. Both feel free to get involved!

What would you lot say was the biggest factor contributing to the supposed decline in Elizabeths success in the last years of her reign?

The last years of Elizabeth are quite vague in my memory, but I would say that it was not the ongoing war with Spain because it had many domestic advantages. As Haigh has argued, the defeat of the three armadas meant that Catholic opposition to the Queen was "diluted by conformity".

Yes, I'd have to agree. In my opinion the biggest problem was probably the death of her key ministers and the fact that the replacements didn't turn out to be as effective, and although factional rivalries are touched upon previously (in the case of Lecister and Burghley) historians such as (MacCaffery, I think?) re-assessed this and summarised that on the whole they agreed and didn't cause much disruption to Elizabeth. But this was lost with the new appointments (Essex and Cecil).
Also, Essex was ambitious to the extent of the ambition seen my nobility before the time of Henry VII; his refusal to follow her instructions, his dodgy dealings in Ireland and so on. He damaged the respect of Elizabeth..and the Essex rebellion was the first rebellion formed from someone so close to the monarch for a long time.

The breakdown in these relations, added to the fact she was ageing and some argued, had began to lose the plot, it was only a matter of time before her reign would start to deteriorate. Every one could sense the end was near so rather than focusing on trying to please her and gain her favour, they looked beyond her to the likes of James of Scotland and tried to be the one instrumenting his succession of the throne. (Seen when both Cecil and Essex tried to make deals with him)

OK, you can stop showing off now

I agree with you. I haven't begun to revise this section yet though haha. I am focusing on religion and the Mid-Tudor Crisis for the time being.

You always accuse me of showing off you bum face! Yh, I haven't really revised that yet but I only did it quite recently in class. Mid-Tudor crisis, WHAT MID-TUDOR CRISIS I say!

Yeah, wouldn't that be a gift of a question! I'll probably get exam sweats and have a complete mind blank if it does though. You go get that historiography! Cheerio x

Do you know if there is a BlackBerry app for TSR? haha

I don't think there is, I haven't got one! There should be though, might stop me playing around on twitter all the time

No idea, I haven't even got a blackberry. Gutted, feel out of touch! There should be one though, TSR is epic!

I'm pretty nervous about LAW04 too, I need a good solid A to get an A overall. And I can't STAND Law and Justice, so I'm hoping Law and morals or Law and fault comes up..

I'm ok with theft, just need to go over the others. I'm focusing on History first though, higher hopes for an A

Why are you not quoting my messages.... haha?

Yes, there should be a TSR app! If there isn't, then I will demand an end to my contract

I just need to go over product liability and economic loss! I haven't even begun to contemplate the concepts of law haha.

I'm sorry, I was being lazy! I'll quote from here onwards lol. Product liability and economic loss, what now? That must of been one of the topics we didn't choose to study! (I hope so anyway or I'm really missing out!) Sounds like contract or tort law? I did criminal, thought you did too? Or are you SHOWING off and teaching yourself all the other sections anyway? Anyway, best not stray too far from History thread!

I am doing Tort for LAW04, so I am not 'SHOWING off' I thought you did it too?!

I basically teach myself A-level law anyway; it is an imperative if you happen to have the teachers I am taught by lol.

Anyway, I was just thinking that a presumption of the Mid-Tudor Crisis is that there existed incompetent leaders between 1547 and 1558. Do you think that there were incompetent leaders then? I think that Northumberland was very capable, hence why David Loades has called him a 'hardened professional' and why Dale Hoak has said that he was 'one of the most remarkably able governors of any European State during the 16th century'. He knew the economic problems of his time and sought to eradicate them by ending the war with France. Selling the city of Boulogne in 1550 granted the Crown £133,333 and the attacks on altars generated substantial amount of wealth too. 'Tis true that he debased the coinage further, but as Penry Williams said about this failure to restore the coinage: "He was faced with an unprecedented problem and even the most experienced financier could hardly have solved it." He was great, basically!

As for Mary, I think that she was not too bad. She burned 289 and gave the Protestant martyrs the publicity of martyrdom, but Christopher Haigh said that she was working towards the grain of public opinion. Also, Penry Williams stated that her financial record was 'at least adequate', as shown by the Book of Rates and her meticulous preparations to restore the coinage from 1556-8 which Elizabeth would copy. Her loss of Calais can be seen as a blessing in disguise as it was hugely expensive to maintain and its position made launching an invasion of France too tempting an opportunity.

Somerset, however, was 'incompetent'. He provoked rebellion in the West with his religious policy and he encouraged it in East Anglia due to his promise to act on enclosure - something he failed to do. However, I do not think that his failures were proof of his incompetence; they were proof of the problems that the previous reign had set in motion.

Something to debate when tackling the Mid-Tudor Crisis

That question would be awesome... so heavily dependent on what you define as a crisis. David Loades says the interpretation of Mid-Tudor Crisis in itself is "Unhelpful"

One historical interpretation argues that the only true period of crisis came in 1549 and even that was barely a crisis in that the problems were quashed.

The argument for Somerset's incompetence is further proven in the fact that he debased the coinage to pay for an invasion of Scotland, which caused the extreme inflation in the first period of Edward's reign. But whilst discussing Scotland, you have to consider the fact the war was inherited and his invasion, particularly the Battle of Pinkie, did minimise the threat of Scotland throughout Edward's reign.

Northumberland- while I find myself agreeing with your arguments, it has to be considered that for the first half of the 20th Century he was considered the "Bad Duke" by all historians until the recent movement to resurrect the truths of his reign. The Devise by Northumberland can also be used as evidence for a crisis in that he could have plunged England into a civil war (as a result of his lust for power) between Mary's supporters and the English government had the parliament accepted LJG's accession. It was only the parliament declaring the move illegal that prevented a civil war.

Mary's is a reign which can be considered as 'not having enough time'. She introduced the Marian Book of Rates on incoming trade which at the time was extremely successful and was indeed carried on into Elizabeth's reign. Even the naval reforms were successful and when it came to 1588 were prevalent in the survival of England from the Armada. Mary's reign has however also been considered as "Sterile" with too few reforms to the economy and military... but if you compare this to the Elizabeth's a "Big Tudor" reign then the reforms made under Mary were actually more numerous than those under Elizabeth who merely adopted Mary's changes and kept them throughout her reign.

Even the argument that rebellions prove their was a crisis during the reigns of 1547- 58, can be proven otherwise in the fact that the "Big Tudors" also had rebellions. Henry had the Pilgrimage of Grace... Elizabeth had the Essex Rebellion as well as Tyrone's Rebellion which lasted from 1594 until after Elizabeth's death in 1603.

D'accord! The best way to tackle the traditional assumption of the Mid-Tudor Crisis is to compare the reigns of Edward and Mary with those of Henry and Elizabeth. The Pilgrimage of Grace 1536 was the greatest rebellion of the whole century; the three rebellions under the 'little Tudors' could not even compare with the Northern Rebellion 1569 under Elizabeth. Moreover, do not forget that factionalism was almost extinct under Northumberland. His council was fully committed to the religious radicalism of the reign, whereas under Henry VIII the Church was evenly divided between Thomas Cranmer and Stephen Gardiner and the Aristocracy was divided between Edward Seymour and Thomas Howard.

I think it is wrong to say that a crisis was a probable circumstance because Northumberland attempted to destroy the Tudor monarchy. You have to base such a question on what actually happened rather than what could of happened. The traditional interpretation of the Mid-Tudor Crisis is based on the grounds that the years 1547-1558 were unique, so try and prove that they were of a very similar nature to the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I.

D'accord! The best way to tackle the traditional assumption of the Mid-Tudor Cribeth I.