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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For Q3- I wrote how social/economic crisis was a factor for decline in government (or however they worded it) and then said however other factors were more important and counter balanced it with, decline in the council, factions which led to the Essex Rebellion, decline in parliament (1601 monopolies) and law and order (Tyrones Rebellion) is this ok? Need an A?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrietw1)
    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?
    I put it into themes of religion, rebellions and succession. I would have done economics but I used my 45 minutes up by that point and had to do the next question. I managed just about to get 4 factors down for Q2!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    An amazing exam, I think I actually did well for a change, did question 1 and 2
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For question 1 I said the statement wasn't valid because although royal authority was maintained during the regency of Northumberland, it was not maintained during the regency of Somerset and the reign of Mary.

    I said Somerset's dictatorial style of government created faction with Southampton and Thomas Seymour, and that he also cut Edward out of government and undermined Edward's authority by trying to insist his counter signature was needed for bills to become law.
    I said his religious policies failed because they were not wholly Protestant or Catholic and because of this it directly led to widespread disorder and the rebellion in Devon, which undermined royal authority because it made the government look incompetent. Also I said issuing injuctions under the King's authority encouraged iconoclasm which led to a decline in law, order and authority.

    I said Northumberland learnt from Somerset's mistakes with style of government by taking the title of Lord President of the Council and allowing Edward to begin to set the agenda for Privy Council meetings however Edward had no say in areas like foreign policy.
    Northumberland also limited faction with his second coup that removed Conservatives from the council and replaced them with Protestants.
    His religious policies were unpopular however he managed to maintain law and order by reintroducing treason laws and the fact that there was no opposition despite his settlement being radically Protestant shows his success in doing this.
    However by tampering with the succession that Henry VIII laid out in his will he undermined royal authority - particularly because he married his son to Lady Jane Grey which in the eyes of many was him trying to hold onto power.

    Mary maintained royal authority early in her reign - she came to the throne with popular support and managed a relatively smooth succession despite Northumberland's meddling.
    The Edwardian religious laws were repealed by October 1553 and Catholic practice like worshipping at Altars rather than communion tables resumed spontaneously throughout the country which showed the popularity of Catholicism.
    However the legal status of the Church was delayed until her third parliament because of the monastic land dispute and her management of parliament was shown to be very poor during this - she threatened to abdicate over it for example.
    Also Wyatt and the rebels as well as Parliament also infringed on her royal prerogative by questioning her choice of Phillip as a spouse and implied that Mary was weak as they feared she would be dominated by Phillip and that she had poor judgement for choosing him as a husband. Also mentioned that many of Wyatt's rebels were Protestants which suggested that Catholicism wasn't universally popular.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For question 2 I said that the statement was not valid because the failure to reintroduce Catholicism was due to a number of factors and to claim that it was just due to poor leadership is invalid.

    I said that poor leadership was a factor because seminary priests were mainly based in the South which was the most Protestant area of the country and also they mainly served Gentry and were unable to penetrate the masses, if the Mission had effective leadership it could have been better organised and more effective. I also said that with effective leadership it could have been possible to co-ordinate a Catholic uprising to coincide with a foreign landing such as what was planned in the Ridolfi plot, but without this leadership the plot failed.

    I then said however leadership would not have made a difference because the attempts to implement a leader of the Catholic mission failed - Archpriest controversy caused the divides between Jesuits and seminary priests to become worse and the seminary priests offered to be loyal to the Crown as a result.

    I then talked about the divides within the Catholic mission - Jesuits took an oath of loyalty to the Pope and were bound by papal decree to overthrow Elizabeth while Seminary priests were just English people trained in Douai and so were still subjects of Elizabeth and many believed they owed loyalty to the Crown and their objective was to simply keep Catholicism alive. Because of the different aims with the Catholic mission it ultimately failed.

    Then finally I talked about government legislation against the Catholic mission, the punishment from recusancy went from 1 shilling to 50 pounds as well as recusants being made to stay within a radius of their homes and being liable to having 2/3 of their property seized if they defaulted on their debt. This meant that the majority of the population could not risk recusancy because the punishment was so harsh so many had no choice but to attend Church and this weakened the effect that the Catholic mission could have - again they could only reach Gentry who could afford it. Also talked about any priests ordained by the Pope's authority committing treason and so it was more risky for people to join the Catholic mission and also further made it so Seminary priests and Jesuits could only work with Gentry because they had big houses to hide in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Grade boundaries everyone? I think that although the Mid-Tudor question was good, the other two questions required a sharp focus on the part of candidates, particularly question 3 since it was such a narrow area.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    can anyone remember the exact wording of question 3?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frank77)
    can anyone remember the exact wording of question 3?
    I remember it being really obscure, it was definitely not a typical "to what extent did authority decline between 1589-1603". I think it was something along the lines of "To what extent were social and economic problems an issue between 1589-1603?". The difficulty with that wording is that many might take it as a decline in authority question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rimstone)
    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,
    Really don't stress about it too much, structure isn't the be all and end all. Did you manage to assert a key argument? (Like royal authority did decline or didn't decline) and if you did and sustained it through repetition, without undermining it, then I'm sure you did a lot better than you think.

    The odd date wrong here and there won't disadvantage you too heavily either, especially as I've seen conflicting information in different textbooks on quite big events.

    Questions weren't particularly straight forward either so I'm sure lots of candidates felt the same way timing always is a bit of a bugger
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob)
    Really don't stress about it too much, structure isn't the be all and end all. Did you manage to assert a key argument? (Like royal authority did decline or didn't decline) and if you did and sustained it through repetition, without undermining it, then I'm sure you did a lot better than you think.

    The odd date wrong here and there won't disadvantage you too heavily either, especially as I've seen conflicting information in different textbooks on quite big events.

    Questions weren't particularly straight forward either so I'm sure lots of candidates felt the same way timing always is a bit of a bugger
    kind words to say,
    but after doing AS i know not to hope for much and be realistic , my 2nd essay was terrible. It will soon be used as an example of what not to write in an exam, though my first essay would be used as what to write in an exam. I'm honestly not stressed about it, it went much better than i thought, i also got what i deserved for the horrible lack of effort i put into history this year.. since i saw it as my easy subject; and i wrote next to no essay 3 weeks before the exam, honestly my skill were really rusty. I would happily leave with a B, which is what ill most likely get. Though A would have made UNI chances somewhat better, but not by much, since i dont need history in any way for my uni cource .. since an A at it looks good. I could get an A, but i wouldnt care/mind at all if i got a B. Anyways hope everyone else, put the effort in and did better than me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tezcatlipoca12)
    For question 2 I said that the statement was not valid because the failure to reintroduce Catholicism was due to a number of factors and to claim that it was just due to poor leadership is invalid.
    For question 2 I did 3 paragraphs that showed leadership was the issue and two/three to show that action taken by the Elizabethan government was what led to the failure to reimpose Catholicism in England. I mentioned this in the introduction to make sure that they knew what I was assessing the question in terms of.

    Leadership Points:
    1) Northern Rebellion, 1569 wasn't able to succeed due to the inability for leaders to help. Despite Northumberland taking control of Durham to hold a Latin mass, failed because key figures at the top of the system failed to help out. E.g Mary QS didn't get involved and the plan itself was to put her on the throne and the Pope took action by excommunicating Elizabeth too late.

    2) Ridolfi and Throckmorton Plot aimed to put M QS on throne, she didn't show any sign of involvement. In addition the Spanish Ambassador de Spes, who sided with the plotters claimed Phillip would send an army to help out, crucial for the success of the plot in order to storm London, but Phillip showed no intention of helping until the Babington Plot in 86, where England were now at war with Spain.

    3) Archpriest Controversy in 98, showed divisions, the easy point etc.

    Not Leadership:
    1) The government defeat of the 69 rebels was inevitable due to the monarch having superior forces and large parts of the population converting to Protestantism.

    2)The Babington Plot was foiled due to the security placed on Mary QS house arrest, meaning mail in and out was checked, meaning it was inevitably going to be figured out. The consequent execution of Mary QS in 87 meant Catholics had no figurehead for a Catholic monarch and so no more rebellions/plots took place as Catholics would rather a protestant monarch control them than inviting the Spanish.

    3) Legislation enacted prevented the spread of Catholicism:
    -81 Act to Retain the Queens Majestys Subjects in their Due Obedience and 85 Act Against Jesuit and Seminary Priests - executed priests, made public mass even harder due to very high risk of being arrested for treason. Only gentry could afford them and the recusancy fine increase made it even hard to avoid church.

    I had a few more explanations so it sounded better when I did it for the ones to do with the 69 rebellion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrietw1)
    For Q3- I wrote how social/economic crisis was a factor for decline in government (or however they worded it) and then said however other factors were more important and counter balanced it with, decline in the council, factions which led to the Essex Rebellion, decline in parliament (1601 monopolies) and law and order (Tyrones Rebellion) is this ok? Need an A?
    This was exactly my essay!!
    1) soc economic challenges did cause problems in government
    2) however despite problems fundamentally wasn't a serious challenge
    3) other more serious challenge - regarding Elizabeth's age and deterioration
    4) regarding the deterioration of the privy council 💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tezcatlipoca12)
    Q1.
    Thanks for posting!

    And lmfao; I just noticed that in the introduction I called the young king Charles VI rather than Edward. Hopefully some examiners have a good sense of .. 'humor'. Or maybe their low initial expectations will help =p

    I think that what you wrote is extensive enough and backed up very well, so it should be at least 35 marks so good job on that!

    This is what I wrote; let me know what you think if you feel like reading a failed essay:

    Somerset:

    One little paragraph where I attempted to latch onto the idea of royal authority and how it could be said that it might have been quite non-existent during the reign of Charles *cough* or rather Edward as Somerset has gone against the wishes of the previous King and taken over the privy council where with his access to the King's seal he had the power of the King, so in essence there was no real *royal* authority.

    Then I mentioned that regardless of that but more widely speaking of the Crown as a whole, Somerset managed to maintain the state's resources (even though thinly spread) as he did eventually manage to quell two rebellions while having his armies in the South to prevent a French invasion, and invading Scotland in the North, showing some ability. Furthermore, he managed to impose the 1547 religious legislation continuing the Protestantism of the previous King with relatively limited opposition at first ad the 1549 Prayer Book. Managed to seize church land and possessions and sell them to nobles, securing some sort of support from the nation's nobility, with that forming an important backbone of royal authority.

    Mentioned the relative lack of success in the rebellions and how royal authority could have also been hurt significantly due to an inability to protect against the realm's own people, considering that a Sovereign is meant to protect the entire realm from foreign aggression (how would the Crown do that while being barely able to protect itself from its own people). The religious reforms were also eventually opposed due to heavy handedness leading, of course, to the Prayer Book/Western rebellion. Kett's ability to maintain many people, resist corruption and seize cities in his rebellion also seriously hurt Royal authority as the main 'point' of nobles in medieval times was their military prowess and ability to manage armies, whereas Kett managed to that himself.

    Skipped Northumberland due to lack of time and went on to Marry:

    Following Northumberland's failed attempt at altering the succession and Mary's successful taking over of the throne, royal authority was strengthened by the popular support Mary enjoyed, showing by some historical interpretation the people's willingness to support 'proper' successions. Mary had the support of the commoners, offering royal authority as her subjects rejoiced at her coronation. Mary managed to cause the navy sent by Northumberland flip to her allegiance, showing support from the navy, as well as support from the nobility and important houses of the realm as the privy council flipped once Northumberland left London for Mary with an army. Mary proved confident and decisive, just as she did in the Wyatt rebellion. Showed an ability to reimpose Catholicism. Historical interpretation that given enough time she would have succeeded.

    Royal authority hurt by the fact that there was an attempted power grab by Northumberland by marrying his son to Lady Jane Grey, with the acceptance of the young king who wished for a continuation of Protestant rule, showing a lack of cohesion in the Crown. The continuous religious changes of Northumberland and then Mary's restoration of Catholicism also hurt royal authority as the crown showed little continuation in its actions. Mary nicknamed Bloody Mary due to her heavy handedness, showing perhaps ineffective rule, perhaps hurting her royal authority as such.


    So annoying how different it is when you're under pressure and when you're chilled...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Azynyan)
    For question 2 I did 3 paragraphs that showed leadership was the issue and two/three to show that action taken by the Elizabethan government was what led to the failure to reimpose Catholicism in England. I mentioned this in the introduction to make sure that they knew what I was assessing the question in terms of.

    Leadership Points:
    1) Northern Rebellion, 1569 wasn't able to succeed due to the inability for leaders to help. Despite Northumberland taking control of Durham to hold a Latin mass, failed because key figures at the top of the system failed to help out. E.g Mary QS didn't get involved and the plan itself was to put her on the throne and the Pope took action by excommunicating Elizabeth too late.

    2) Ridolfi and Throckmorton Plot aimed to put M QS on throne, she didn't show any sign of involvement. In addition the Spanish Ambassador de Spes, who sided with the plotters claimed Phillip would send an army to help out, crucial for the success of the plot in order to storm London, but Phillip showed no intention of helping until the Babington Plot in 86, where England were now at war with Spain.

    3) Archpriest Controversy in 98, showed divisions, the easy point etc.

    Not Leadership:
    1) The government defeat of the 69 rebels was inevitable due to the monarch having superior forces and large parts of the population converting to Protestantism.

    2)The Babington Plot was foiled due to the security placed on Mary QS house arrest, meaning mail in and out was checked, meaning it was inevitably going to be figured out. The consequent execution of Mary QS in 87 meant Catholics had no figurehead for a Catholic monarch and so no more rebellions/plots took place as Catholics would rather a protestant monarch control them than inviting the Spanish.

    3) Legislation enacted prevented the spread of Catholicism:
    -81 Act to Retain the Queens Majestys Subjects in their Due Obedience and 85 Act Against Jesuit and Seminary Priests - executed priests, made public mass even harder due to very high risk of being arrested for treason. Only gentry could afford them and the recusancy fine increase made it even hard to avoid church.

    I had a few more explanations so it sounded better when I did it for the ones to do with the 69 rebellion.
    Pretty much said the same as you! How reassuring, I feel like I rambled in this question but I managed to get all this down so hopefully it was ok
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Thanks for posting!

    And lmfao; I just noticed that in the introduction I called the young king Charles VI rather than Edward. Hopefully some examiners have a good sense of .. 'humor'. Or maybe their low initial expectations will help =p

    I think that what you wrote is extensive enough and backed up very well, so it should be at least 35 marks so good job on that!

    This is what I wrote; let me know what you think if you feel like reading a failed essay:
    .
    Thanks I hope it's mid to high 30s. Apart from missing our Northumberland your essay seems very good, lots of specific evidence and comment so I think you'll have done well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tezcatlipoca12)
    For question 2 I said that the statement was not valid because the failure to reintroduce Catholicism was due to a number of factors and to claim that it was just due to poor leadership is invalid.

    I said that poor leadership was a factor because seminary priests were mainly based in the South which was the most Protestant area of the country and also they mainly served Gentry and were unable to penetrate the masses, if the Mission had effective leadership it could have been better organised and more effective. I also said that with effective leadership it could have been possible to co-ordinate a Catholic uprising to coincide with a foreign landing such as what was planned in the Ridolfi plot, but without this leadership the plot failed.

    I then said however leadership would not have made a difference because the attempts to implement a leader of the Catholic mission failed - Archpriest controversy caused the divides between Jesuits and seminary priests to become worse and the seminary priests offered to be loyal to the Crown as a result.

    I then talked about the divides within the Catholic mission - Jesuits took an oath of loyalty to the Pope and were bound by papal decree to overthrow Elizabeth while Seminary priests were just English people trained in Douai and so were still subjects of Elizabeth and many believed they owed loyalty to the Crown and their objective was to simply keep Catholicism alive. Because of the different aims with the Catholic mission it ultimately failed.

    Then finally I talked about government legislation against the Catholic mission, the punishment from recusancy went from 1 shilling to 50 pounds as well as recusants being made to stay within a radius of their homes and being liable to having 2/3 of their property seized if they defaulted on their debt. This meant that the majority of the population could not risk recusancy because the punishment was so harsh so many had no choice but to attend Church and this weakened the effect that the Catholic mission could have - again they could only reach Gentry who could afford it. Also talked about any priests ordained by the Pope's authority committing treason and so it was more risky for people to join the Catholic mission and also further made it so Seminary priests and Jesuits could only work with Gentry because they had big houses to hide in.
    This is basically exactly what i wrote! I also put about how there was growing conformity towards Protestantism therefore would mean that the catholic threat was minimised as even some church papists were loyal to eliz and some jesuits converted towards end of reign//Also the effectiveness of her settlement meant they were not able to reimpose catholicism
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tezcatlipoca12)
    Thanks I hope it's mid to high 30s. Apart from missing our Northumberland your essay seems very good, lots of specific evidence and comment so I think you'll have done well.
    Oh awesome; thank you!

    Hopefully I'll catch a patient examiner willing to put up with a crap structure.

    Are marks specifically taken off for rather hectic answer structures, do you think?
    Offline

    3
    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 virtually wrote the same apart which is reassuring as i didnt write loads of external factors apart from saying the cstholix oppositio was mkre of a challenge in conclusion just didnt have enough time . I stupidly forgot the essex rebllion but i did also write about the monoplies caused from eliz having to fimd alterative raise money and this cause monoplies debate and conflict in parliament vut then oppsed it by saying eliz dealt with it by golden speech so wasnt a massive challenge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    for q3. I wrote about the poor socio-econ years between 94-97 and the food riots etc
    then I said this was resolved with the Tillage Act, etc
    then I said other factors posed a threat, Ireland, Tyrone's rebellion in how he defeated the English at the Battle of Yellow Ford to remove English authority in Ireland, etc
    then I talked about Spains threat with their numerous armadas in 96 after Cadiz and 97 after Ferol
    my next point was about Essex and his actions that posed a threat and lastly, I talked about the religious threats to government which was resolved

    I don't think I could've talked about monopolies because it was within government

    did i wrote the right or wrong things?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  history meme.jpg
Views: 112
Size:  64.6 KB
 
 
 
  • 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.