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

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?

can anyone remember the exact wording of question 3?

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 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?

Q1.

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.

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:
.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?