Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

So if you wrote about parliament for question 3 you're erm... Wrong?

It would be right if you were saying about ministers controlling/using parliament...that's the line I would have taken with that question.

Reply 941

mcgovernjon

I thought all of the questions were horrible, but it seems like a lot of people feel the same so UMS boundaries will hopefully be kind. :-)

Reply 942

Gemini123

Im very confused..just to clear up, what should you have written about for question 3?

Reply 943

High As A Kite

wonder what Alex thought :/

Reply 944

joelmole100

Original post by EnVogue

It would be right if you were saying about ministers controlling/using parliament...that's the line I would have taken with that question.

Hmmm, well I didn't. Bye A* :smile:

****ing idiotic paper though in all seriousness. What were they playing at really?

Reply 945

EnVogue

Original post by joelmole100

Hmmm, well I didn't. Bye A* :smile:

****ing idiotic paper though in all seriousness. What were they playing at really?

Oh no, I'm sure what you've written will be fine :smile:

You always have your second essay as well!

Did anyone else think it was hard to get enough detail for question 1?

Reply 946

philosophizingnerd

Did anyone do question 3?!!

Reply 947

mcgovernjon

Original post by EnVogue

Oh no, I'm sure what you've written will be fine :smile:

You always have your second essay as well!

Did anyone else think it was hard to get enough detail for question 1?

Yeah, absolutely. 1 and 2 were both way too narrow, more like the kind of 24 mark questions we would have got last year.

Reply 948

High As A Kite

yes, a failure for question 3 here!

q's were so poorly worded, bar 2 which was OK

Reply 949

Gemini123

Original post by philosophizingnerd

Did anyone do question 3?!!

Meeeeeeeeeeeee! What kind of stuff did you write about? I really hated that exam :frown:

Reply 950

big-bang-theory

Original post by joelmole100

So if you wrote about parliament for question 3 you're erm... Wrong?

If you wrote about parliament in isolation, then it's irrelevant rather than wrong. If you talked about Ministers use of patronage to control parliament to a large degree, then it would've been relevant.

Reply 951

D.M.N.

Original post by EnVogue

Did anyone else think it was hard to get enough detail for question 1?

I thought Question 1 was too vague and could be interpreted multiple ways.

Reply 952

Gemini123

If you wrote about Essex, Cecil and Burghley etc was that right for question 3? This seems to say that they were ministers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministers_to_Elizabeth_I

Reply 953

High As A Kite

i really wanted to burn my history work but now i gotta wait till results day :frown:

Reply 954

philosophizingnerd

Original post by Gemini123

Meeeeeeeeeeeee! What kind of stuff did you write about? I really hated that exam :frown:

basically everything in her reign,
I did a sort of indepth analysis on walsingham, cecil, and leiscter..plus I talked about how the interventions in france(early 60s) were not a good idea I talked about how the pc members advocated her on the scotland stuff..
I talked about babington plot-- good vision walsingham
end of her reign- factional problems-essex rebbelion
all the oppositions in religion that included the struggle to her settlement..loads of other stuff-cant re4ally remember

mentally and physically drained......

what about you?

Reply 955

xelarose

I did questions 1) and 3)

Hope everybody's done okay! The exam could have gone a lot worse for me, but thats because I liked question (the rebellions I foudn interesting and not too hard :smile:

). My question 3 on the other hand.. I could have wrote so much, i'm worried on that one! I did try my hardest though, nobody could have asked for more.

What odd exam questions really though.. no dates, no foreign policy. This summer seems to be the summer of odd exams judging by the news and what I've been told :p:

Good luck for results day guys! What historians did you all use? I used

M.Tillbrook (Repeatedly)
John Guy
Peter Lake
W.R.D.Jones
John Matusiak
David Starkey (not sure how this one will hold out, but I do love Starkey :p:

)

Reply 956

joelmole100

I admit I made a mistake in the third question misinterpreting her 'ministers' as meaning Parliament (albeit I had a Grindal paragraph - he was one of her ministers am I right?) but does anyone else honestly feel generally cheated? The exam was virtually nothing like we'd been prepared for...

Sort of like a years worth of material has just been wasted!

In terms of my overall grade I'm resting on 183 UMS for last year.. and roughly 53/54 out of 60 for the coursework. Is it worth emailing my first choice uni and informing them of the possiblity that I may not get an A for this paper?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 957

ashwin230888

Original post by big-bang-theory

My points for question 3 were:

- Burghleys use of the parliament with aritocrats to achieve parliament.
- Essex rebellion
- Burghley and Leisters presbyterian invovment
- Elizabeth being a woman so, at the beginning she was messed around
- How Elizabeth used her punishments to control her ministers (E.g. removing William Stricken)

is that right?

thanks

Reply 958

Averagegirl:)

I did question one:
After debating the intended motives of each rebellion (Religion-Western.. Wyatt-xenophobia & religion, Kett- Political enclosures and whacked in 1553 Nothumberland's 'devise' JIC) I argued that all the rebellions were politcal in ORIGIN as they essentially attempted to defy a serving monarch which had a political basis. But whether this was the intent of the rebellion or not is where they differed.. and thus compared to Elizabeths ONE rebellion (1569) it may have been Rebellions originated due to POLITICAL dissatisfaction with the uneasiness of the mid-tudors.
Probably wrong though as my friend wrote different.

I also did the Jesuits one and argued they were not a threat basically (obviously I did argue both sides)
Because they were based geographically in the south-east
Were restricted to the nobility who were keeping them and essentially only maintained the religion in an already Catholic household
Elizabeth saw them as a threat because she made so many laws against them
They were a threat because as Elton said they "arressted the decline" of Catholicism and allowed them to unite in a body able to survive persecution. I then said something about the dangers of the discontinuity thesis.
SO in conclusion argued that they were not a threat as the people of England were loyal to Elizabeth and obeyed her government as she didn't aim to 'create windows into mens souls"

FAILED BASICALLY

Reply 959

mcgovernjon

Original post by D.M.N.

I thought Question 1 was too vague and could be interpreted multiple ways.

It was really vague, so I reckon they'll be fairly open to definition. I defined a political rebellion as an uprising which was a response to central government policy, which made everything a whole lot easier.