AQA A2 HISTORY HIS3B: The Triumph of Elizabeth, 1547-1603. 10th June 2016

Okay thank you this is so helpful!!!
So to clarify, government is the broad term and within that is privy council, parliament and local gov?

Was Cartwright opposed to the existence of Bishops simply because he was influenced by Calvinism? Did he advocate for that just because the 39 articles of Elizabeth, signed into law only in 1570/1571 following the Papal Bull, did not determine who could interpret scripture, and so bishops would have no real authority? I'm a bit confused on the topic =/

Do you think there's any point in knowing much about Presbyterianism?

Also, was the vestment controversy in 1563 or 1564 after the 1563 meeting of the bishops? Perhaps 1564 where Parker had to bow to the Queen's influence and force the vestments on the clergy in 1565? Or the Parliament's discussion of further church reformation?

The 1563/1566 parliaments discussed both succession and further church reformation, right?

Does anybody else feel a bit pitchy on one particular area of the specification? Is it worth going through it comprehensively in the time left?

Thank you both very much for the replies!

Aydin, was the issue with Cartwright brought about by the fact that Elizabeth's 1960s 39 articles did not define who had a right to interpret scripture, and as such allowed Cartwright to play not only on the bible, but the law too? I know that in the book, it is said that that one flaw of the 39 articles would bring disadvantages to Elizabeth's rule a decade or two later.

Additionally to what others have said as Cartwright was an extreme Puritan, he felt passionate about implementing Calvinism and thought that Elizabeth's settlement was half-hearted and not quite reformed enough. The religious settlement of 1559 meant that there was a hierarchical church structure within the Church of England for example with the archbishop, then bishops, archdeacons etc. However, Puritan beliefs in line with Calvinism called for the Genevan structure of the church where everybody was of equal importance. Cartwright disagreed with this structure and how Elizabeth was head of the church, so if the Genevan structure was implemented it would mean that Elizabeth's title as 'Supreme Governor' would not exist and her authority would have been demolished. I guess the 39 articles of 1563 re-established her authority and beliefs as monarch, and Cartwright disapproved because they were partially Calvinist such as by denying transubstantiation, but also the other extreme as Elizabeth had more Catholic sacramental views, which was too tolerant in the view of Puritans, and is why Cartwright was not happy about the articles!

Ah I see, thank you.

Although, I would've thought that normal Puritans would be in favor of state control of the church, with only the Separatists being unwilling to be part of the Anglican Church. So Cartwright, as the supposed father of Presbyterianism, was not just a Purist, but a Presbyterian as well. Only the Pres were willing to break from the Anglican Church to follow a 'simple' church hierarchy then? So Pres were more or less the equivalent to Separatists? Or were the Pres simply in favor of having no bishops and having a simpler church, still under the control of the state (that's what makes most sense to me).

And thanks Aidyn.

Conformists accepted state control, whereas to my knowledge, Presbyterians had mixed views, with many still not liking control of the state (didn't like Elizabeth being in control of the church because she was a woman, and Presbyterian/Genevan views were pretty sexist!). Separatists/Brownists were the most passionate about having a church structure with no hierarchy where everybody was equal. Cartwright did want the Genevan church structure, which is what the whole controversy about the 39 articles was about. Presbyterians mostly wanted a simple church, however, some did want to pursue a separate church like separatists, which is seen in Cartwright's viewpoints. He was an extreme presbyterian, strongly hoping the Genevan Structure would be implemented in England!

Ahh I see, thank you for making it as clear!

So Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism and, in fact, a separatist himself?

Ahh I see, thank you for making it as clear!

So Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism and, in fact, a separatist himself?

Sorry my mistake, I have realised I put in the other post that he wanted a church separated from the state! Cartwright was strictly a Presbyterian and did not want a separated church from the state but did not agree with the church's hierarchical structure and wanted it replaced with a more Genevan one. He did not agree with the separatists, just didn't like episcopacy. Sorry for this!! It's been a long day

Haha, no problem! I'm glad you made it a bit clearer still.

So then he just didn't agree with the idea of a state controlled church, but he was not advocating for separation either. I just want to be a bit more sure about this as this can be an important argument in an essay, I think.

yes exactly

What would be the main 3 points for/against the war in the Netherlands being responsible for the deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations 1558-85?

Thanks

P.S. good luck to everyone tomorrow, let's hope all our hard work pays off with some nice questions!

Well I always do my essays in three themes so I'd do:

Netherlands as a factor
International trade as a factor
Religion as a factor

Then I'd say because the Netherlands is so heavily linked to trade and religion it is the most important factor in the outbreak of war.

Thanks, we've been taught to do three 'for' paragraphs and three 'against' so would doing three themed paragraphs mean you put both for/against aspects in each paragraph? Just wondering...

Yes, what I would do if i was arguing that the Netherlands was the most important factor would be to discuss the Netherlands in the first paragraph, then in the following paragraphs when I discuss trade and religion I would first show how they were a factor, then undermine them in contrast to the Netherlands as a factor

Well I always do my essays in three themes so I'd do:

Netherlands as a factor
International trade as a factor
Religion as a factor

Then I'd say because the Netherlands is so heavily linked to trade and religion it is the most important factor in the outbreak of war.