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:
    (Original post by sixthformer122)
    Okay thank you this is so helpful!!!
    So to clarify, government is the broad term and within that is privy council, parliament and local gov?
    yes exactly
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anybody else feel a bit pitchy on one particular area of the specification? Is it worth going through it comprehensively in the time left?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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?
    Additionally to what others have said as Cartwright was an extreme Puritan, he felt passionate about implementing Calvinism and thought that Elizabeth's settlement was half-hearted and not quite reformed enough. The religious settlement of 1559 meant that there was a hierarchical church structure within the Church of England for example with the archbishop, then bishops, archdeacons etc. However, Puritan beliefs in line with Calvinism called for the Genevan structure of the church where everybody was of equal importance. Cartwright disagreed with this structure and how Elizabeth was head of the church, so if the Genevan structure was implemented it would mean that Elizabeth's title as 'Supreme Governor' would not exist and her authority would have been demolished. I guess the 39 articles of 1563 re-established her authority and beliefs as monarch, and Cartwright disapproved because they were partially Calvinist such as by denying transubstantiation, but also the other extreme as Elizabeth had more Catholic sacramental views, which was too tolerant in the view of Puritans, and is why Cartwright was not happy about the articles!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kinroy)
    Does anybody else feel a bit pitchy on one particular area of the specification? Is it worth going through it comprehensively in the time left?
    urgh yes I feel quite a bit patchy on the causes of the Spanish war, up to you! I think I will go over it tomorrow
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    Yes I think so. the royal injunctions and disagreement over the 39 articles led to the convocation. This was allowed since the articles failed to define who could clarify the meaning of scripture. Also the church could define rites or ceremonies, but could not contradict scripture.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cookieCC)
    Additionally to what others have said as Cartwright was an extreme Puritan, he felt passionate about implementing Calvinism and thought that Elizabeth's settlement was half-hearted and not quite reformed enough. The religious settlement of 1559 meant that there was a hierarchical church structure within the Church of England for example with the archbishop, then bishops, archdeacons etc. However, Puritan beliefs in line with Calvinism called for the Genevan structure of the church where everybody was of equal importance. Cartwright disagreed with this structure and how Elizabeth was head of the church, so if the Genevan structure was implemented it would mean that Elizabeth's title as 'Supreme Governor' would not exist and her authority would have been demolished. I guess the 39 articles of 1563 re-established her authority and beliefs as monarch, and Cartwright disapproved because they were partially Calvinist such as by denying transubstantiation, but also the other extreme as Elizabeth had more Catholic sacramental views, which was too tolerant in the view of Puritans, and is why Cartwright was not happy about the articles!
    Ah I see, thank you.

    Although, I would've thought that normal Puritans would be in favor of state control of the church, with only the Separatists being unwilling to be part of the Anglican Church. So Cartwright, as the supposed father of Presbyterianism, was not just a Purist, but a Presbyterian as well. Only the Pres were willing to break from the Anglican Church to follow a 'simple' church hierarchy then? So Pres were more or less the equivalent to Separatists? Or were the Pres simply in favor of having no bishops and having a simpler church, still under the control of the state (that's what makes most sense to me).

    And thanks Aidyn.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Ah I see, thank you.

    Although, I would've thought that normal Puritans would be in favor of state control of the church, with only the Separatists being unwilling to be part of the Anglican Church. So Cartwright, as the supposed father of Presbyterianism, was not just a Purist, but a Presbyterian as well. Only the Pres were willing to break from the Anglican Church to follow a 'simple' church hierarchy then? So Pres were more or less the equivalent to Separatists? Or were the Pres simply in favor of having no bishops and having a simpler church, still under the control of the state (that's what makes most sense to me).

    And thanks Aidyn.
    Conformists accepted state control, whereas to my knowledge, Presbyterians had mixed views, with many still not liking control of the state (didn't like Elizabeth being in control of the church because she was a woman, and Presbyterian/Genevan views were pretty sexist!). Separatists/Brownists were the most passionate about having a church structure with no hierarchy where everybody was equal. Cartwright did want the Genevan church structure, which is what the whole controversy about the 39 articles was about. Presbyterians mostly wanted a simple church, however, some did want to pursue a separate church like separatists, which is seen in Cartwright's viewpoints. He was an extreme presbyterian, strongly hoping the Genevan Structure would be implemented in England!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cookieCC)
    Conformists accepted state control, whereas to my knowledge, Presbyterians had mixed views, with many still not liking control of the state (didn't like Elizabeth being in control of the church because she was a woman, and Presbyterian/Genevan views were pretty sexist!). Separatists/Brownists were the most passionate about having a church structure with no hierarchy where everybody was equal. Cartwright did want the Genevan church structure, which is what the whole controversy about the 39 articles was about. Presbyterians mostly wanted a simple church, however, some did want to pursue a separate church like separatists, which is seen in Cartwright's viewpoints. He was an extreme presbyterian, strongly hoping the Genevan Structure would be implemented in England!
    Ahh I see, thank you for making it as clear!

    So Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism and, in fact, a separatist himself?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Ahh I see, thank you for making it as clear!

    So Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism and, in fact, a separatist himself?
    Sorry my mistake, I have realised I put in the other post that he wanted a church separated from the state! Cartwright was strictly a Presbyterian and did not want a separated church from the state but did not agree with the church's hierarchical structure and wanted it replaced with a more Genevan one. He did not agree with the separatists, just didn't like episcopacy. Sorry for this!! It's been a long day
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Ahh I see, thank you for making it as clear!

    So Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism and, in fact, a separatist himself?
    Personally I wouldn't say he was the father of Presbyterianism, but certainly as a scholar he introduced such truly Calvinist ideas to England, which if course were furthered by people such as Wilcox and Field, who later definitively led the Presbyterian movement in England.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cookieCC)
    Sorry my mistake, I have realised I put in the other post that he wanted a church separated from the state! Cartwright was strictly a Presbyterian and did not want a separated church from the state but did not agree with the church's hierarchical structure and wanted it replaced with a more Genevan one. He did not agree with the separatists, just didn't like episcopacy. Sorry for this!! It's been a long day
    Haha, no problem! I'm glad you made it a bit clearer still.

    So then he just didn't agree with the idea of a state controlled church, but he was not advocating for separation either. I just want to be a bit more sure about this as this can be an important argument in an essay, I think.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Caius Filimon)
    Haha, no problem! I'm glad you made it a bit clearer still.

    So then he just didn't agree with the idea of a state controlled church, but he was not advocating for separation either. I just want to be a bit more sure about this as this can be an important argument in an essay, I think.
    Cartwright wanted a Church without a hierarchy of bishops who he argues had no scriptural basis and effectively caused inefficiencies in the Church.

    I don't personally know if that extended to opposing the monarch as Supreme Governor of the Church, but I would assume so given the value placed in the classis system.

    However I think it's safest not to mention whether he was opposed to Elizabeth's authority

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty sure government means just her ministers and not Parliament?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a_bit_of_a_noob)
    yes exactly
    Isn't government just her ministers and not Parliament?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What would be the main 3 points for/against the war in the Netherlands being responsible for the deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations 1558-85?

    Thanks

    P.S. good luck to everyone tomorrow, let's hope all our hard work pays off with some nice questions!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katycookie)
    What would be the main 3 points for/against the war in the Netherlands being responsible for the deterioration in Anglo-Spanish relations 1558-85?

    Thanks

    P.S. good luck to everyone tomorrow, let's hope all our hard work pays off with some nice questions!
    Well I always do my essays in three themes so I'd do:

    Netherlands as a factor
    International trade as a factor
    Religion as a factor

    Then I'd say because the Netherlands is so heavily linked to trade and religion it is the most important factor in the outbreak of war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehollowcrown)
    Well I always do my essays in three themes so I'd do:

    Netherlands as a factor
    International trade as a factor
    Religion as a factor

    Then I'd say because the Netherlands is so heavily linked to trade and religion it is the most important factor in the outbreak of war.
    Thanks, we've been taught to do three 'for' paragraphs and three 'against' so would doing three themed paragraphs mean you put both for/against aspects in each paragraph? Just wondering...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katycookie)
    Thanks, we've been taught to do three 'for' paragraphs and three 'against' so would doing three themed paragraphs mean you put both for/against aspects in each paragraph? Just wondering...
    Yes, what I would do if i was arguing that the Netherlands was the most important factor would be to discuss the Netherlands in the first paragraph, then in the following paragraphs when I discuss trade and religion I would first show how they were a factor, then undermine them in contrast to the Netherlands as a factor
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehollowcrown)
    Yes, what I would do if i was arguing that the Netherlands was the most important factor would be to discuss the Netherlands in the first paragraph, then in the following paragraphs when I discuss trade and religion I would first show how they were a factor, then undermine them in contrast to the Netherlands as a factor
    ah okay that makes sense!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thehollowcrown)
    Well I always do my essays in three themes so I'd do:

    Netherlands as a factor
    International trade as a factor
    Religion as a factor

    Then I'd say because the Netherlands is so heavily linked to trade and religion it is the most important factor in the outbreak of war.
    Do you write plans or do you just hop right into it? If you do write plans what would your structure be?
    Spoiler:
    Show
    E.g. I would do a question such as 'How much of a threat was MQoS to Elizabeth?' as:

    Intro - present ways in which she could be a threat (domestically, internationally, religiously tying these together), outline argument but acknowledge that opposing side will be examined too as there is evidence to the contrary.

    FOR
    1 - Threat in Scotland + support of France, exacerbated by vulnerability of Elizabeth being in early stage of reign.
    2 - Dynastic threat - succession crisis.
    3 - Domestic threat - 1569 Rebellion, 1571 + 1586 Plots supported by Spain
    Whilst maintaining that religion underpinned all of these (esp. after 1570 Papal Bull).

    AGAINST
    1 - Lack of threat in Scotland + loss of French support.
    2 - Lack of domestic threat - rebellion suppressed, plots uncovered, her survival was only due to Elizabeth's reticence to execute.
    3 - Lack of religious threat - Catholicism increasingly unpopular, Parliament by and large Protestant, no evidence to suggest that 1588 Armada was result of her execution.

    Conc - in earlier years she was a great threat but due to her failures here, threat dwindled as time passed, Catholic opposition was ongoing but not really due to her presence, and Elizabeth's religion ultimately retained predominance.

    I'm never short of content or arguments/historiographical debate but I struggle to hit the top grades due to my erratic structures.

    With such a structure as above, would you be more tempted to simply do the 3 for/3 against in order or would you follow a for/against, for/against, for/against structure? I do the second but my teacher says it's confusing.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • 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.