Personal Rule was good, discussed Strafford, his methods in Ireland and linked the fact that he persuaded Charles to recall parliament which ultimately allowed opposition to take form and structure (although most grievances were directed towards him anyway, so choice of advisors more significant cause of opposition than grievances!). Then discussed Laud and the Prynne, Burton & Bastwick case, then counter argued that it was Charles' financial devices that caused opposition, but pointed out that there were no rebellions/major opposition to finance, and the only significant threat to PR was the Bishops' War - a war over religion & Laudian changes! Overall, it was okay and hope I did enough evaluation, analysis, detail etc etc. EDIT - oh I didn't really focus on the "growing" nature of opposition, will this matter massively?! (although I did highlight, albeit subtly, that the Bishops War and parliamentary opposition came after Laud and Strafford's changes, so hope the examiner can read between the lines!)
Section B - anyone do Cromwell? The question and the sources were nice, but I felt as though what I was writing was a bit jumbled, and was writing the conclusion with three minutes to go! I did three paragraphs: his failure to manage parliament; fear of a military dictatorship; and his contrasting aims.
Oh well, only time will tell guys