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

Original post by V1008

What points would you make in terms of france helping elizabeth to achieve her foreign policy aims?
- Anjou's intervention (didnt she provide financial support)

She paid Casimir, the Elector of The Palatinate to intervene against the French and Spanish at least twice. She also backed the Dutch, Huguenots and the Portuguese in fighting habsburg spain and the guises.

Reply 182

mildrew98

10

Original post by Caius Filimon

Would you peeps say that throwing out dozens of arguments would be a good idea in the essays? As in, rather than go very in depth with but a few events, would it still be alright to mention many various events and happenings without mentioning as many details pertaining to those events? In the way of writing more than just 3 main body paragraphs of pros and cons to certain factors with regards to the question's quote or what not.

In short, would one be doomed for having good general knowledge but little 'specialized' or in depth knowledge? As long as the debate itself would be sound and still include a few dates?

It will depend on the question. There are two styles of questions, depth (normally two on these) and one breadth.
Breadth question will quite clearly reference the whole of Elizabeth's reign (or once AQA did it for the whole of mid-tudor and start of Liz's reign) and for that question its definitely better to know brief but plenty bits of knowledge

for the depth questions, you will need to be a bit more specific (understand ideas) as the time period will be smaller and the topic is likely to be specialised around a detailed event (eg, causes for anglo-spanish war deterioration).

Either way, I would say line of argument is the most important thing. Learn a few essential dates (or say periods, Puritan influence in Parliament was strongest 1570s and 1580s). Don't stress too much if you don't know every fact there is :smile:

Reply 183

mildrew98

10

Original post by emmappleby22

How would you structure a parliament question?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Parliament's function was legislation and taxation,

so structuring it

Economic achievements (taxation, monopolies, subsides ect..)
Religious achievements (settlement, opposition from Puritans/Catholic penal laws)
Royal Prorogative issues (succession, Mary Queen of Scots and intervention for Protesantism)

should work, depending on the wording of the question :smile:

Reply 184

katinthehat

Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob

I think I agree with you (well i really want to agree with you because those q's would be nice). When you say extent of mid-tudor religious reform, do you mean success of the reform? How else could the question be phrased?

I think that's most likely. Probably leaning towards who was more successful out of Edward or Mary, or possibly was Elizabeth successful in her religious settlement because of mid-Tudor radicalism? Something along those lines! :u:

Reply 185

Caius Filimon

17

Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob

It will depend on the question. There are two styles of questions, depth (normally two on these) and one breadth.
Breadth question will quite clearly reference the whole of Elizabeth's reign (or once AQA did it for the whole of mid-tudor and start of Liz's reign) and for that question its definitely better to know brief but plenty bits of knowledge

for the depth questions, you will need to be a bit more specific (understand ideas) as the time period will be smaller and the topic is likely to be specialised around a detailed event (eg, causes for anglo-spanish war deterioration).

Either way, I would say line of argument is the most important thing. Learn a few essential dates (or say periods, Puritan influence in Parliament was strongest 1570s and 1580s). Don't stress too much if you don't know every fact there is :smile:

I see, thank you!

I suppose I'll just have to try and go over some more minor details until tomorrow then.

Good luck to everyone!

Reply 186

sixthformer122

‘The Elizabethan religious settlement was never seriously challenged in the years 1559 to1603.’ Assess the validity of this view.

I assumed that this question was about puritan/ Presbyterian opposition and also catholic opposition in terms of the religious settlement.

Is this wrong?

Reply 187

cookieCC

Does anyone have any ideas in general on how Elizabeth achieved her foreign policy aims? Would it be through relations with France, overseas trade, intervention in the Netherlands etc? Bit confused on this!

Reply 188

Heya, how wold you structure a question on who was more successful in mid tudor religious reforms?? :/

Reply 189

thehollowcrown

Original post by Anna2021

Heya, how wold you structure a question on who was more successful in mid tudor religious reforms?? :/

I've done a question like this before, and I did my themes as:

-the ability of the monarch to implement their own ideas in the settlement
-overcoming opposition (if they faced it) to their religious settlement
-longevity of their reforms and impact on the laity

Reply 190

Original post by thehollowcrown

I've done a question like this before, and I did my themes as:

-the ability of the monarch to implement their own ideas in the settlement
-overcoming opposition (if they faced it) to their religious settlement
-longevity of their reforms and impact on the laity

Thank you so much! That makes sense!! :smile:

Reply 191

Original post by sixthformer122

‘The Elizabethan religious settlement was never seriously challenged in the years 1559 to1603.’ Assess the validity of this view.

I assumed that this question was about puritan/ Presbyterian opposition and also catholic opposition in terms of the religious settlement.

Is this wrong?

No, seems correct to me.

Reply 192

katinthehat

Original post by Anna2021

Heya, how wold you structure a question on who was more successful in mid tudor religious reforms?? :/

This question would mean you've got two options:

•

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

•

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

1.

Edward effectively implements the Act of Treason and the repeal of the 6 Articles in 1547 which is further than his father Henry VIII ever dared to go, and was not directly challenged. Haigh: Edward "broke decisively with the past.

2.

Edward surrounded himself with Puritan advisers and was determinedly Puritan - nobody could prevent him with continuing with the Edwardian Reformation in spite of the fact he was 15. Made Coverdale (translator of the Bible into English) his chaplain and Cranmer his archbishop. Duffy describes the 1547 Injunctions as "a charter for revolution".

3.

Mary turned public opinion against her with her treatment of heretics. 284 burnt at the stake, with Cranmer's burning after recanting considered particularly barbaric in 1566. Elton: "Her Catholic beliefs were both unpopular and undisguised."

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

1.

Mary's ascension to the throne after Northumberland's devise "the only successful Tudor rebellion" (Guy). She was unchallenged on entry into London and even those such as the Earl of Oxford who declared for Mary after his household servants demanded so were soon convinced by the Marian regime's efficient continuation of her coronation and legitimisation of her rule by Parliament in 1553 and her rather simplistic undoing of everything Edward had done through the Act of Repeal. Most of court remained Catholic in sentiment. Haigh: "continuing consolidation of Catholic strength" even towards the end of her reign.

2.

Edward faced two rebellions which were largely motivated by religion whereas Mary faced one which was largely motivated by foreign policy. This demonstrates how unpopular Edward's Reformation was. Only 32% of people leave money to the Church in 1547 in comparison to Henrician 70% in 1540.

3.

Local implementation of Edward's reformation was more difficult than the Marian counterpart. Marian reversion was "natural" (Haigh) whereas Edward's took more effort to implement through the Church wardens and even after this there were still high levels of recusancy as people did not enjoy the plain services. "The great majority of English peoples did not want the Reformation :undefined: of Edward" - Hutton

Reply 193

Original post by Anna2021

Heya, how wold you structure a question on who was more successful in mid tudor religious reforms?? :/

I would look at the various kinds of success, using a historian to argue against by proxy. For instance, If we were to go with G.R. Elton I would go:

- Success with Laity : Edward Success, Mary Failure (Elton), dependent on the poor reception of Marian burning and exiles (Elton would). I would disagree, pointing to the quick transformation of the churches back to a catholic style of worship in most places as well as the struggle of Edward to enforce his settlement

- Success with being exact ideas of the monarch: Elton would go Mary success, Edward failure, as Mary is presented as an arch-catholic and Edward's very strong Protestantism wasn't ever fully implemented even after the November 1552 Book of Common Prayer. I would say neither succeed since as Elton said with Edward, but also Reginald Pole being considered a heretic according to the papacy and Paul IV's rage at her protection of him, and hence Mary, in spite of being very strongly catholic, failed at producing a good catholic nation as a result.

- Success in legacy: Elton would go Mary failed and Edward succeeded since Elizabeth largely kept the 1552 prayer book while Catholicism wasn't the state religion again before 1685. I would be inclined to agree.

Conclude : I would say overall that mary succeeded short term, Edward long term.

Reply 194

raabia-haq

If it is MQoS, the plots are an important thing and they are related to the fact that she is a Catholic. Catholics viewed her as their natural leader and those that wanted England to restore to Catholicism wanted her on the throne. She had also come to England and posed more of a threat to Elizabeth.
She was also a legitimate heir to the throne, creating more of a reason to kill Elizabeth and make England Catholic again.
Mary could also involve France and Spain as they were allies; she was married to Henry and the Spanish ambassador was also involved in the Throckmorton Plot.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head, hope that helps. :smile:

Reply 195

Original post by TercioOfParma

I would look at the various kinds of success, using a historian to argue against by proxy. For instance, If we were to go with G.R. Elton I would go:

- Success with Laity : Edward Success, Mary Failure (Elton), dependent on the poor reception of Marian burning and exiles (Elton would). I would disagree, pointing to the quick transformation of the churches back to a catholic style of worship in most places as well as the struggle of Edward to enforce his settlement

- Success with being exact ideas of the monarch: Elton would go Mary success, Edward failure, as Mary is presented as an arch-catholic and Edward's very strong Protestantism wasn't ever fully implemented even after the November 1552 Book of Common Prayer. I would say neither succeed since as Elton said with Edward, but also Reginald Pole being considered a heretic according to the papacy and Paul IV's rage at her protection of him, and hence Mary, in spite of being very strongly catholic, failed at producing a good catholic nation as a result.

- Success in legacy: Elton would go Mary failed and Edward succeeded since Elizabeth largely kept the 1552 prayer book while Catholicism wasn't the state religion again before 1685. I would be inclined to agree.

Conclude : I would say overall that mary succeeded short term, Edward long term.

I agree with your judgement!
Just to add quick random facts to the first para:
At the start of Mary's reign she was crowned Queen in East Anglia before in London and when she became Queen, Leicestershire was quick to rebuild altars and say mass!

Thank you so much!

Reply 196

Original post by katinthehat

This question would mean you've got two options:

•

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

•

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

1.

Edward effectively implements the Act of Treason and the repeal of the 6 Articles in 1547 which is further than his father Henry VIII ever dared to go, and was not directly challenged. Haigh: Edward "broke decisively with the past.

2.

Edward surrounded himself with Puritan advisers and was determinedly Puritan - nobody could prevent him with continuing with the Edwardian Reformation in spite of the fact he was 15. Made Coverdale (translator of the Bible into English) his chaplain and Cranmer his archbishop. Duffy describes the 1547 Injunctions as "a charter for revolution".

3.

Mary turned public opinion against her with her treatment of heretics. 284 burnt at the stake, with Cranmer's burning after recanting considered particularly barbaric in 1566. Elton: "Her Catholic beliefs were both unpopular and undisguised."

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

1.

Mary's ascension to the throne after Northumberland's devise "the only successful Tudor rebellion" (Guy). She was unchallenged on entry into London and even those such as the Earl of Oxford who declared for Mary after his household servants demanded so were soon convinced by the Marian regime's efficient continuation of her coronation and legitimisation of her rule by Parliament in 1553 and her rather simplistic undoing of everything Edward had done through the Act of Repeal. Most of court remained Catholic in sentiment. Haigh: "continuing consolidation of Catholic strength" even towards the end of her reign.

2.

Edward faced two rebellions which were largely motivated by religion whereas Mary faced one which was largely motivated by foreign policy. This demonstrates how unpopular Edward's Reformation was. Only 32% of people leave money to the Church in 1547 in comparison to Henrician 70% in 1540.

3.

Local implementation of Edward's reformation was more difficult than the Marian counterpart. Marian reversion was "natural" (Haigh) whereas Edward's took more effort to implement through the Church wardens and even after this there were still high levels of recusancy as people did not enjoy the plain services. "The great majority of English peoples did not want the Reformation :undefined: of Edward" - Hutton

Thats awesome, thank you! Id argue for Mary in the short term, focusing on popular support! As mentioned already, we can link Elizabeth's reforms to her use of Edward's in terms of combining the wording of his prayer books in her 1559 book and yeah sounds good!

Good luck for tomorrow!

Reply 197

Original post by cbutton97

can you quote Michael Tillbrook, the writer of the aqa book, as a historian?

He's a historian, so I would say yes.

Reply 198

mildrew98

10

Original post by katinthehat

This question would mean you've got two options:

•

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

•

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

Edward was, and Mary wasn't

1.

Edward effectively implements the Act of Treason and the repeal of the 6 Articles in 1547 which is further than his father Henry VIII ever dared to go, and was not directly challenged. Haigh: Edward "broke decisively with the past.

2.

Edward surrounded himself with Puritan advisers and was determinedly Puritan - nobody could prevent him with continuing with the Edwardian Reformation in spite of the fact he was 15. Made Coverdale (translator of the Bible into English) his chaplain and Cranmer his archbishop. Duffy describes the 1547 Injunctions as "a charter for revolution".

3.

Mary turned public opinion against her with her treatment of heretics. 284 burnt at the stake, with Cranmer's burning after recanting considered particularly barbaric in 1566. Elton: "Her Catholic beliefs were both unpopular and undisguised."

Mary was, and Edward wasn't

1.

Mary's ascension to the throne after Northumberland's devise "the only successful Tudor rebellion" (Guy). She was unchallenged on entry into London and even those such as the Earl of Oxford who declared for Mary after his household servants demanded so were soon convinced by the Marian regime's efficient continuation of her coronation and legitimisation of her rule by Parliament in 1553 and her rather simplistic undoing of everything Edward had done through the Act of Repeal. Most of court remained Catholic in sentiment. Haigh: "continuing consolidation of Catholic strength" even towards the end of her reign.

2.

Edward faced two rebellions which were largely motivated by religion whereas Mary faced one which was largely motivated by foreign policy. This demonstrates how unpopular Edward's Reformation was. Only 32% of people leave money to the Church in 1547 in comparison to Henrician 70% in 1540.

3.

Local implementation of Edward's reformation was more difficult than the Marian counterpart. Marian reversion was "natural" (Haigh) whereas Edward's took more effort to implement through the Church wardens and even after this there were still high levels of recusancy as people did not enjoy the plain services. "The great majority of English peoples did not want the Reformation :undefined: of Edward" - Hutton

People like u deserve medals, this is relaly helpful thank you

in your opinion would you say Mary or Edward was more successful? (I'm swayed slightly towards Mary because of 'suvivalist Catholicism' and the undeniable majority favouring the 'old religion')

Reply 199

katinthehat