Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I did question 3 and 2 since I hadn't revised the Mid-Tudor periods thoroughly enough as I had AS Politics yesterday afternoon.

    Question 3 was lovely.
    Question 2 was meh but it wasn't too bad
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by redwhiteandbrit)
    I thought it was great. Q1 was worded weirdly in comparison to what my notes were on, and Q2 was perfect - EXCEPT I ran out of steam for the later period? Only discussed Archpriest and the fact that Haigh said it was a religion of households...

    Hopefully (and I think I did) I made it work for the question. Lots of historiography, lots of synopticity. Feeling confident and I hope everyone does well!!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I was clutching for straws towards the end of the period since the threat was basically gone after 1588. I ended up saying that the fact the protestant succession of james saw no catholic opposition or alternative catholic successors proves it had failed. Probably should have mentioned the Tyrone rebellion :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it was ok tbh! I did the first question, said Royal authority declined whilst Edward had Somerset as a Protector, then increased up until 1558, and the continuity of Mary's reforms to Elizabeth I shows this.

    Then I did the second question, and my themes were poor leadership, Elizabeth's methods of dealing with th Catholics, and the idea that her via media weakened the base of Catholic support initially anyway. Kinda made that last theme up as I went along tho lol!

    I thought Q3 looked proper hard tho!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Welp, didn't draw up a plan before the questions. Hopefully **** structure won't cripple one's grade too much.

    Welp, good luck with your grades peeps; hopefully the grade boundaries aren't terribly high this year.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aydin7)
    I was clutching for straws towards the end of the period since the threat was basically gone after 1588. I ended up saying that the fact the protestant succession of james saw no catholic opposition or alternative catholic successors proves it had failed. Probably should have mentioned the Tyrone rebellion :/
    Same, for the final years I just spoke about Archpriest Controversy and the dwindling of the recusant population. I didn't mention the succession, because I had like 30 seconds left lol, but I did say the presence of a Puritan movement shows that Elizabeth was lenient on Catholics in her via media. I didn't mention Tyrone either, only spoke about Spanish foreign policy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    bad ones as I was running out of time and started to panic so not thinking straight, I talked about the factional rivalry between Cecil & Essex causing challenges in administration of Government & Then the ongoing conflict with Spain.... Worst essay ever... but its over now ! Can't look back eh. I'm not even sure if it was relevant, but my coursework should help me out (hopefully)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehollowcrown)
    Same, for the final years I just spoke about Archpriest Controversy and the dwindling of the recusant population. I didn't mention the succession, because I had like 30 seconds left lol, but I did say the presence of a Puritan movement shows that Elizabeth was lenient on Catholics in her via media. I didn't mention Tyrone either, only spoke about Spanish foreign policy
    yeah I said the puritans in government perceived the catholic threat greater than it actually was. I mentioned some foreign factors like how foreign powers played a role in the plots and the massacre/assassination of foreign protestants.
    Bizarrely worded question, but alright once you get stuck in!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    For q3 I only mentioned factors in gov like Essex rebellion, decline in quality of ministers and monopolies (briefly)
    Didn't mention war with Spain or external challenges? Will this affect my mark?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aydin7)
    yeah I said the puritans in government perceived the catholic threat greater than it actually was. I mentioned some foreign factors like how foreign powers played a role in the plots and the massacre/assassination of foreign protestants.
    Bizarrely worded question, but alright once you get stuck in!
    Yeah I used foreign policy for the plots! And I also said about weak leadership of the Armada meaning that an international attempt to reimpose Catholicism failed. It was strange how they put it from the point of view of the Catholics rather than Elizabeth's government, that threw me off at first as well.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QueenOfNachos)
    Q 3 went horribly wrong for me I didn't mention Crown finance, would that pull down my mark?
    Imo it was really weird to structure a late period question over social and economic stuff given that it constitutes a whole 3-4 pages of the textbook.

    If you talked about 'socioeconomic' discontent you probably answered the question without needing to talk about crown finances specifically.

    I mentioned the food riots, Oxfordshire rising and Essex rebellion to support the challenge whilst underlining that the fragmented government was in no position to deal with this turmoil (just to crowbar in stuff about control over parliament).

    Conversely I said that given parliament never failed to provide subsidies and implemented the poor laws it was fundamentally united behind the crown so never was at risk of collapse. That was all I could think of to the contrary.

    For the first question I dealt with decline in authority thematically. Religious authority ofc took up the largest portion of the debate, followed by socioeconomic authority and contort over government (Mary had control, Edward/Somerset/Northumberland did not).

    Similar to what others have put?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Question 1 seemed to go well however a tiny bit stretched for time. I didn't particularly like the look of 2 or 3 but went with 2 since I feel i knew the Catholic topic well.

    Just concerned since it was worded quite ambiguously, I'm not sure I tackled it with the right approach BUT hopefully I did relatively okay. Well done guys & goodbye history A Level!x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Q1 went well I think

    For Q2 I put:
    Case against lack of leadership - Jesuits and Seminary priests may have revived movement so it might be overstating the facts to suggests that there was "poor leadership"
    Case for lack of leadership - Jesuits and Seminary priests could not operate effectively (in a geographical sense and in the sense of their actions, serving gentry etc etc)
    Case for Elizabeth being the main factor through her soft touch policies - no martyrdom for as long as possible, relatively light approach to dealing with Catholics
    Case for Elizabeth being the main factor through her more authoritative policies e.g. Penal laws
    Lack of influence at Council and at Court - fall of Norfolk removes last traces of Catholicism, the Council decide its best to uphold Protestantism from then on
    The divisions between catholic groups - Archpriest Controversy
    Conclusion - poor leadership played a role but it was the astuteness of Elizabeth which caused downfall of Catholicism

    So yeah, no mention of Excommunication other than a sentence about Elizabeth action in dealing with it (makes it treasonable to bring into realm a Papal Bull), no real armada discussion but I'm happy overall.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Anybody else use primary evidence, like the demands of kett's and the western rebels and wills?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Imo it was really weird to structure a late period question over social and economic stuff given that it constitutes a whole 3-4 pages of the textbook.

    If you talked about 'socioeconomic' discontent you probably answered the question without needing to talk about crown finances specifically.

    I mentioned the food riots, Oxfordshire rising and Essex rebellion to support the challenge whilst underlining that the fragmented government was in no position to deal with this turmoil (just to crowbar in stuff about control over parliament).

    Conversely I said that given parliament never failed to provide subsidies and implemented the poor laws it was fundamentally united behind the crown so never was at risk of collapse. That was all I could think of to the contrary.

    For the first question I dealt with decline in authority thematically. Religious authority ofc took up the largest portion of the debate, followed by socioeconomic authority and contort over government (Mary had control, Edward/Somerset/Northumberland did not).

    Similar to what others have put?
    Yes I mainly talked about the socio-economic problems -
    My essay is structured as follows: (1) how the overspending of the Crown abroad (Netherlands, Ireland etc) exacerbated the problem/delayed to process of alleviating them, (2) government responses to economic problems/riots, and (3) the extent to which the problems had affected the country across the period.

    Also I am not sure if the problems of government finances are considered economic crisis. I didn't talk much about others including the Essex Rebellion and the outdated tax system, making my answer really narrow The phrase 'economic crisis and social disorder' really tripped me over
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Anybody else use primary evidence, like the demands of kett's and the western rebels and wills?
    I said that only 32% of northern wills went towards the churches, indicating that Edward had not been successful in imposing his Protestantism. My main argument was that it was a surface obedience easily overturned by Mary.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    I said that only 32% of northern wills went towards the churches, indicating that Edward had not been successful in imposing his Protestantism. My main argument was that it was a surface obedience easily overturned by Mary.
    I should have done that. I used that to show that much of england was still catholic so the leadership was somewhat correct in their assumption that england was still catholic, but they were incorrect in their assumption that they would follow rome over london.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For Q1 I put religion for mary and edward, and rebellions that undermined royal authority and then royal succession for the other.

    For Q2 I put about poor leadership in rebellions and in plots. I then put Elizabeths management and poor foreign involvement as other reasons for failure.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Damns i flopped that. I was prepared for all the Q's but was set on doing mid-tudors from the start, since its easy as hell. I chose Q2 since i was ready for religion, since i was weak on it. I was also ready for Q3 but thought i didnt have enough evidence, even though i did.

    So i did Q2 first, since it was hard. destroyed it. but my last point was weak and i got the dates wrong. I also spent 50/55 mins on it ..

    I had a plan for Q3 but did Q1 and it was a horrible essay. intro was Q repeated with me saying they did maintain it. And i just regurgitated evidence and said they kept or didn't keep authority without explain why... My paragraphs were not balanced and i didnt finish though, were i finidhed can be seen as a full essay. But i had a lot more to wrtie but ran out of time, that essay was crapp. So bad for such an easy Q, i was really prepared for it as well.

    so now i have a Q2 which can get 30-40 marks
    and Q1 that can get 20-30 marks.

    either getting a C/B ..... for ****ing up my timing really. And forgetting how to write an essay. so many things i forgot, which is a joke seeing as i knew them and did them well since the start of A2 hell even AS..... thanks a lot brain,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elen90)
    Imo it was really weird to structure a late period question over social and economic stuff given that it constitutes a whole 3-4 pages of the textbook.

    If you talked about 'socioeconomic' discontent you probably answered the question without needing to talk about crown finances specifically.

    I mentioned the food riots, Oxfordshire rising and Essex rebellion to support the challenge whilst underlining that the fragmented government was in no position to deal with this turmoil (just to crowbar in stuff about control over parliament).

    Conversely I said that given parliament never failed to provide subsidies and implemented the poor laws it was fundamentally united behind the crown so never was at risk of collapse. That was all I could think of to the contrary.

    For the first question I dealt with decline in authority thematically. Religious authority ofc took up the largest portion of the debate, followed by socioeconomic authority and contort over government (Mary had control, Edward/Somerset/Northumberland did not).


    Similar to what others have put?
    I said Mary and Somerset had authority over government to some extent but Mary didn't, I also put it into themes but in terms of the council, finances, foreign policy and law and order (rebellions) did any one else do this?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Anybody else use primary evidence, like the demands of kett's and the western rebels and wills?
    I did, I used some Cecil quotes I had
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.