<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

cat_Holmes

Original post by Flopstar

How would everyone structure their essays? I was thinking intro and conclusion and 3 main paragraphs. I don't think I'd have enough time to write much more than that.

We have been told to do it like this:
Introduction-pick out a key word in the question and write what you mean by it e.g the word 'crisis' you would say if rebellions mean a crisis or a crisis is a direct threat to a monarchs life etc. Then you would say what your arguement will be in the essay
Main body- clear title of what the paragraph will be about eg. Religion under Mary. Always argue for your arguement that you wrote in the intro eg. Saying 'despite catholic restoration being popular Marys rule was a crisis because of her struct punishment of heretics'. Don't say 'on the otherhand this disagrees with my arguement because'. You always need to have a consistent arguement throught but do include the other side but just say that your arguement is better! Then after every paragraph say 'overall this shows that.....' and refer it back to the question and your arguement. We haven't been told anything about a certain number of paragraphs so just do as many as you think is necessary.
Then write a conclusion were you will refer back to the arguement and the question pulling in evidence from your paragraphs.
Hope this helps, I have medium sized writing and I always try to write 10 marks per side of paper. So for 45 marks I would aim to do 5 sides of A4.

Reply 101

Flopstar

Original post by cat_Holmes

Thanks very much that's perfect!

Reply 102

QueenOfNachos

How would you structure the question 'How important were relations with France in helping Elizabeth achieve her foreign policy aims?' ? I tried structuring by countries but it doesn't seem to work/a bit repetitive.

Reply 103

TercioOfParma

Original post by QueenOfNachos

I would go :

Introduction
1558 - 1572
1572 - 1585
1585 - 1603
Conclusion

Then talk about france primarily and contrast it against other countries.

Reply 104

cookieCC

Original post by QueenOfNachos

I've been trying to plan an essay for this too and am struggling slightly. I've decided to structure it by different factors (factors could be countries), and in each paragraph express how Elizabeth's actions around that factor helped her achieve her foreign policy aims: to keep the costs down, to defend England and English independence, avoid war for as long as possible, and to maintain a balance of power in Europe. Some factors which did help Elizabeth achieve her foreign policy aims would be relations with France as it states in the question, involvement in the Netherlands, and involvement in new world/trade etc. For example after talking about France in depth and how the Treaty of Blois in 1572 helped maintain a balance of power in Europe by forming an anti-Spanish defence, you could mention in a paragraph about trade how Elizabeth's sponsorship of privateers in the new world allowed her to gain more money and therefore helped to ease the costs of war. The new trade routes in places such as Muscovy and Morroco also showed Philip II that she wasn't solely reliant on trade with Antwerp under Spanish control, as by 1582 all English trade to Antwerp had seized, which also shows English independence. Just some ideas!

Reply 105

Historyhelp999

Any ideas what eliz gov/parliament que might be asked and how they'd go about them?

Reply 106

Caius Filimon

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?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 107

mildrew98

how would guy guys structure a mid-tudor religion question, say on the successes of policy?

Reply 108

mildrew98

Original post by Caius Filimon

Vestment controversy was 1566, I would say. Parker's Advertisements in 1565, and then 37 London clergy refused to conform in 66, which led to them losing their positions.

Reply 109

mildrew98

Original post by Historyhelp999

Any ideas what eliz gov/parliament que might be asked and how they'd go about them?

I would say this is most likely to be the breadth question, unless it focuses on the final years of divisions and factional rivalry which is quite harsh in my opinion.

"how far was Elizabeth well served by her ministers?"
"Elizabeth was never in control of her parliaments, how far do you agree"
"Elizabeth's government was a complete success" How far do you agree

That sort of thing, maybe interchaning 'ministers' for councillors, and 'parliament' for 'government'

Reply 110

Caius Filimon

Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob

Vestment controversy was 1566, I would say. Parker's Advertisements in 1565, and then 37 London clergy refused to conform in 66, which led to them losing their positions.

Ah, thank you! Much appreciated.

Any chances you could please have a go at the other questions as well? It would help everyone seeing the thread as it would make important details clearer. Thanks!

Reply 111

sixthformer122

Is there a difference between government and Parliament? Getting so confused!

Reply 112

Caius Filimon

Original post by sixthformer122

Is there a difference between government and Parliament? Getting so confused!

Good question... government can mean both the Crown (the monarch) as well as the parliament... I'd guess that government refers to the Crown though (and so, Elizabeth or the reigning monarch of the time). Mainly because there was no 'proper' government to speak about during that time due to feudalism and the use of vassals, and the Crown had the power to declare war and convene or disband the parliament.

tl;dr government should mean crown/monarch in power.

Reply 113

cat_Holmes

Original post by sixthformer122

Is there a difference between government and Parliament? Getting so confused!

Parliament (poor law etc) is separate from the privy council (cecil, walsingham and co) and governement refers to everyone who runs the country.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 114

mildrew98

Original post by Caius Filimon

Ah, thank you! Much appreciated.

Any chances you could please have a go at the other questions as well? It would help everyone seeing the thread as it would make important details clearer. Thanks!

Yes of course,
I'm not that clued up on Cartwright but I know Presbytarians in general disliked Elizabeth's church hierarchy of episcopacy (the use of bishops) and that was because it was a less reformed structure than that of the Calvinist, Genevan government. I would say its not worth knowing the intricacies of the ideologies of the Purtain groups other than simply;
The three types were Conformists (these advocated 'adiaphora'= things indifferent, and while they didn't like the Catholic elements of the settlement, they were willing to adapt, conform and accept the Queen's verdict as final. Archbishop Grindal was a conformist (a Puritan in a high position shows Elizabeth tolerance of conformist Puritans), but his unwillingness to supress prophesysings in 1577 led to his removal of office.
Presbytarians, these sought to reform the church hierachy in line with Genevan Calvinism. They were arguably the most threatening because of their size (had a popular following) but still many in this group sought to obey Elizabeth, petitioning for reform but ultimately remaining loyal to their monarch regardless. The 1588-9 Martin Marprelate Tracts left Presbytarians largely discredited as many were horrified by the scathing remarks of Puritan propaganda and sought to disassociate themselves from the movement.
Separatists; smallest group, grew in the later period of Elizabeth's reign (1580s-) under Browne and Harrison. Robert Browne eventually submitted to Elizabeth's government and professed loyalty, showing ultimately the Puritan groups held little regard for making any real challenge to Liz. Separatists were the most threatening in principle ideology because they disliked Elizabeth as 'Supreme Governer' and believed the Church and State should be separate institutions (hence their name). However, there was little separatist support so they gradually died out.
Other than that, you will not need to know the specifics of their ideology; it is more significant that you understand why it would be threatening (ie. Separatists challenging Elizabeth's soveriegnty) than why they believe what they do, if that makes sense.

And yes both parliaments did discuss succession, the atmosphere was heightened by Elizabeth's smallpox and near-death in 1562. Wentworth was the leader of the group (causing trouble as he did with the Puritan parliamentary dissent 1571-87), and Parliament was mainly confronting Elizabeth about the succession after Cecil organised a joint delegation to do so (Councillors loved to use Parliament as a means to control Elizabeth - often to her annoyance, and would trigger her go-to response of 'I am your leader, you are my subjects').

Reply 115

Caius Filimon

Original post by cat_Holmes

Parliament (poor law etc) is separate from the privy council (cecil, walsingham and co) and governement refers to everyone who runs the country.

Posted from TSR Mobile

In Feudalism there is no proper 'official' government.. but I suppose your teacher has told you/you've read that government means all the nobles, vassals, etc?

Reply 116

mildrew98

Original post by sixthformer122

Is there a difference between government and Parliament? Getting so confused!

As far as I'm aware, and what I've read in examiner's reports, is that Government covers three main institutions, Parliament being one of them. The other two are the Privy Council, and then local government (law courts, ect..). Local government is not big in the textbook and not a huge part of the spec so don't worry too much about that other than knowing the Council of the North's role in the Northern Rebellion (Sussex was pretty rubbish at supressing the rebellion and so was replaced).
Big bug for examiners seems to be if people confused Privy Counil and Parliament.

Parliament is made up of the Soveriegn (Queen Liz), House of Lords and House of Commons (in descending order of hierarchy). Parliament played a mainly legislative role, issuing subsides and statute laws (particularly important with religion).

However, Privy Coucil was about 12 of Elizabeth's closest councillors and ministers. This included Cecil, Walsingham, Leicester, Sadler, Mildmay ect... While the Privy Council sometimes controlled Parliament, they were two very diferent institutions within Tudor Government.
Privy Council = Offered advice, very intimate to Elizabeth, were a PERMANENT point of call. Towards the end of her reign. she called Privy Council almost every day.
Parliament = passed legislation, and an intermediary point of call. Liz called parliament only 10 times (lasting for 13 sessions in total) and 11/13 sessions she successfully asked for taxation, although sometimes she consulted Parliament for advice as seen with asking if assisting the Scottish rebels (63, 67) was a good idea.

Reply 117

username2460773

Original post by Caius Filimon

Cartwright lectured at Cambridge in 1570 about the virtues of the early church and he could not see the scriptural basis for the office of the bishop. His lectures alarmed Whitgift who removed his professorship. This dismissal made him a martyr and the spiritual leader of puritan/Presbyterian movement.

In 1563 the bishops(Cartwright, Sampson Humphrey and others from the meeting you refer to) petitioned Convocation to ask, among other things, if the surplice could be accepted as sufficient for most services(in opposition to the ornaments rubric).
It was defeated by only 1 vote. I guess this can be seen as the start of the controversy, but it really kicks off in 1566 due to Parker's Advertisements which laid down strict vestment rules and resulted in the deposition of 37 clergymen. Also, Liz didn't wait for the report from Parker but rushed in and dismissed Sampson.

Reply 118

Caius Filimon

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.