This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- What Should I pick for my Year 13 History Option
- predicting the a level aqa history papers 2024
- OCR A-level History British period study and enquiry: All exams 10th Jun 2022
- AQA a level history predictions
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- tudor paper prediction 1485-1603 paper 1C
- A level tudor paper 23rd of may
- OCR A-Level History Unit 1 (Y101-Y113) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A to 1L) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- rate my a level options for y12 in sept
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 13 June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]
- Revision resources
- a level history help
- Any Predictions for AQA A-level 1C Tudors paper?
- OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 1 (Y101-Y113) - 7th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- books for a level crusades and modern britain
- History A level question
OCR History, Synoptic Paper - Tudor Rebellions
Scroll to see replies
A bit about factions:
Factions are political groups who try to push through a certain idea. They are a bit like political parties, but much smaller, existing only for a short period of time, only lobbying one issue before dissolving. I'll give some examples of Tudor factions to give you a better idea.
Yorkist faction was responsible for the Lovell&Stafford Brothers in 1486, Simnel in 1487, Warbeck between 1492 and 1499. Margaret of Burgundy was the main source of finance for all of these I think.
There was a Aragonese vs Boleyn faction struggle between about 1527 to 1536. Aragonese faction opposed the divorce, break with Rome and the move towards Protestantism. In PoG Aske, i think, was part of the Aragonese faction and campaigned to have Catherine restored as Queen. Boleyn faction was partly responsible for the fall of Wolsey.
During the mid-tudor crisis, there was Somerset vs Northumberland factions. Northumberland successfully took power from Somerset in 1551. There is a very weak and subtle point to argue here - arguably, Northumberland faction succeeded in a dynastical rebellion of changing the succession and putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days.
Essex vs. Cecil faction at court battling it out in the late 16th C which culminated in the Essex rebellion.
From 1534 onwards, there were Catholic vs Protestant factions. I think it's pretty obvious what each one wanted. Elizabeth refused to marry because she did not want to come down on the side of one faction or another. So they were quite important.
There is also a pretty weak point you can make about factions at the Battle of Stoke, when some Nobles did not join the fight until they were sure that Henry was going to win. It kind of shows that the country was still factionalised after the War of the Roses. Pretty crap point it seems to me, but my teacher says it's kinda valid =/
I cant come up with any more... If I've missed something, please fill me in guys!!
Factions are political groups who try to push through a certain idea. They are a bit like political parties, but much smaller, existing only for a short period of time, only lobbying one issue before dissolving. I'll give some examples of Tudor factions to give you a better idea.
Yorkist faction was responsible for the Lovell&Stafford Brothers in 1486, Simnel in 1487, Warbeck between 1492 and 1499. Margaret of Burgundy was the main source of finance for all of these I think.
There was a Aragonese vs Boleyn faction struggle between about 1527 to 1536. Aragonese faction opposed the divorce, break with Rome and the move towards Protestantism. In PoG Aske, i think, was part of the Aragonese faction and campaigned to have Catherine restored as Queen. Boleyn faction was partly responsible for the fall of Wolsey.
During the mid-tudor crisis, there was Somerset vs Northumberland factions. Northumberland successfully took power from Somerset in 1551. There is a very weak and subtle point to argue here - arguably, Northumberland faction succeeded in a dynastical rebellion of changing the succession and putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days.
Essex vs. Cecil faction at court battling it out in the late 16th C which culminated in the Essex rebellion.
From 1534 onwards, there were Catholic vs Protestant factions. I think it's pretty obvious what each one wanted. Elizabeth refused to marry because she did not want to come down on the side of one faction or another. So they were quite important.
There is also a pretty weak point you can make about factions at the Battle of Stoke, when some Nobles did not join the fight until they were sure that Henry was going to win. It kind of shows that the country was still factionalised after the War of the Roses. Pretty crap point it seems to me, but my teacher says it's kinda valid =/
I cant come up with any more... If I've missed something, please fill me in guys!!
Factions are political groups who try to push through a certain idea. They are a bit like political parties, but much smaller, existing only for a short period of time, only lobbying one issue before dissolving. I'll give some examples of Tudor factions to give you a better idea.
Yorkist faction was responsible for the Lovell&Stafford Brothers in 1486, Simnel in 1487, Warbeck between 1492 and 1499. Margaret of Burgundy was the main source of finance for all of these I think.
There was a Aragonese vs Boleyn faction struggle between about 1527 to 1536. Aragonese faction opposed the divorce, break with Rome and the move towards Protestantism. In PoG Aske, i think, was part of the Aragonese faction and campaigned to have Catherine restored as Queen. Boleyn faction was partly responsible for the fall of Wolsey.
During the mid-tudor crisis, there was Somerset vs Northumberland factions. Northumberland successfully took power from Somerset in 1551. There is a very weak and subtle point to argue here - arguably, Northumberland faction succeeded in a dynastical rebellion of changing the succession and putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days.
Essex vs. Cecil faction at court battling it out in the late 16th C which culminated in the Essex rebellion.
From 1534 onwards, there were Catholic vs Protestant factions. I think it's pretty obvious what each one wanted. Elizabeth refused to marry because she did not want to come down on the side of one faction or another. So they were quite important.
There is also a pretty weak point you can make about factions at the Battle of Stoke, when some Nobles did not join the fight until they were sure that Henry was going to win. It kind of shows that the country was still factionalised after the War of the Roses. Pretty crap point it seems to me, but my teacher says it's kinda valid =/
Yorkist faction was responsible for the Lovell&Stafford Brothers in 1486, Simnel in 1487, Warbeck between 1492 and 1499. Margaret of Burgundy was the main source of finance for all of these I think.
There was a Aragonese vs Boleyn faction struggle between about 1527 to 1536. Aragonese faction opposed the divorce, break with Rome and the move towards Protestantism. In PoG Aske, i think, was part of the Aragonese faction and campaigned to have Catherine restored as Queen. Boleyn faction was partly responsible for the fall of Wolsey.
During the mid-tudor crisis, there was Somerset vs Northumberland factions. Northumberland successfully took power from Somerset in 1551. There is a very weak and subtle point to argue here - arguably, Northumberland faction succeeded in a dynastical rebellion of changing the succession and putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days.
Essex vs. Cecil faction at court battling it out in the late 16th C which culminated in the Essex rebellion.
From 1534 onwards, there were Catholic vs Protestant factions. I think it's pretty obvious what each one wanted. Elizabeth refused to marry because she did not want to come down on the side of one faction or another. So they were quite important.
There is also a pretty weak point you can make about factions at the Battle of Stoke, when some Nobles did not join the fight until they were sure that Henry was going to win. It kind of shows that the country was still factionalised after the War of the Roses. Pretty crap point it seems to me, but my teacher says it's kinda valid =/
Thank you muchly! I've been struggling with this for ages now, and you made it so much clearer!
Ok, I'm starting to get addicted to this lol I'm finding it pretty helpful for myself as well ) Please give more feedback guys, especially on the points where i put a question mark.
I'm going to post the more subtle points in this course.
Law and Fear were used by the Government to keep stability. Especially in the second half of the century. In 1551 the Treason Laws were made and these were tightened in 1571, so that two or three men meeting for more than half an hour could be considered traitors.
The Urban Experiments started in the second half of the century (correct?) They included:
Providing workshops for the unemployed poor.
Importing grain from places like Danzig to avoid starvation and rebellion in cities during times of bad harvests.
Organising Charity, I think it's called Parish Relief (?) to help those poor who were in real need of help.
All this stuff culminated in the 1598 Poor Law, which made use of many of the practices from the Urban Experiments and made it a legal obligation for Parished to collect a tax from the able citizens that went to payments of "benefits" to those in need. Can someone please expand on this if they can? i get confused with Poor Law so bad.
Next thing: The changing structure of politics and society.
Towards the end of the 16th Century, Nobles lost a lot of their power. The feudal ties broke down and Elizabeth went some way to promoting the image of England as a single Nation. Shakespeare, for the first time, wrote about England as a country (or something like this) rather than just a collection of provinces.
Politics moved away from localities and to the Court. Many low birth people now advised the King, examples - Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecils.
Yeomen, who are basically the slightly richer Commons (correct?) prospered and by the end of the century became much better educated. They refused to lead rebellions and instead took the disputes to the parliament.
There number of JPs increased by 50% under Elizabeth, which improved local government.
There are three good points to back all this stuff up.
The failure of the Oxfordshire Rebellion shows the lack of popular support for rebellions. The Commons felt that the Government did everything it could to help them. It upheld its role in the Great Chain, so they the Commons did not have a moral right to rebel.
The failure of Essex to attract more than 300 people in his rebellion, of which none were of any significance (i.e. no major nobles joined him) shows that the Nobles did not want rebellion on the battlefield and instead saw Court politics and intrigues as the new preferred form of opposition to the Monarch.
Monopolies pissed the Commons off and in 1603 (correct?) the parliament met and advised Elizabeth to drop these, which it did (correct). This shows how big and serious issues were starting to be resolved in Parliament, rather than through rebellion.
) Please give more feedback guys, especially on the points where i put a question mark.I'm going to post the more subtle points in this course.
Law and Fear were used by the Government to keep stability. Especially in the second half of the century. In 1551 the Treason Laws were made and these were tightened in 1571, so that two or three men meeting for more than half an hour could be considered traitors.
The Urban Experiments started in the second half of the century (correct?) They included:
Providing workshops for the unemployed poor.
Importing grain from places like Danzig to avoid starvation and rebellion in cities during times of bad harvests.
Organising Charity, I think it's called Parish Relief (?) to help those poor who were in real need of help.
All this stuff culminated in the 1598 Poor Law, which made use of many of the practices from the Urban Experiments and made it a legal obligation for Parished to collect a tax from the able citizens that went to payments of "benefits" to those in need. Can someone please expand on this if they can? i get confused with Poor Law so bad.
Next thing: The changing structure of politics and society.
Towards the end of the 16th Century, Nobles lost a lot of their power. The feudal ties broke down and Elizabeth went some way to promoting the image of England as a single Nation. Shakespeare, for the first time, wrote about England as a country (or something like this) rather than just a collection of provinces.
Politics moved away from localities and to the Court. Many low birth people now advised the King, examples - Wolsey, Cromwell, Cecils.
Yeomen, who are basically the slightly richer Commons (correct?) prospered and by the end of the century became much better educated. They refused to lead rebellions and instead took the disputes to the parliament.
There number of JPs increased by 50% under Elizabeth, which improved local government.
There are three good points to back all this stuff up.
The failure of the Oxfordshire Rebellion shows the lack of popular support for rebellions. The Commons felt that the Government did everything it could to help them. It upheld its role in the Great Chain, so they the Commons did not have a moral right to rebel.
The failure of Essex to attract more than 300 people in his rebellion, of which none were of any significance (i.e. no major nobles joined him) shows that the Nobles did not want rebellion on the battlefield and instead saw Court politics and intrigues as the new preferred form of opposition to the Monarch.
Monopolies pissed the Commons off and in 1603 (correct?) the parliament met and advised Elizabeth to drop these, which it did (correct). This shows how big and serious issues were starting to be resolved in Parliament, rather than through rebellion.
That's all right I think except a couple of dates, Elizabeth took action on monopolies in 1601 (having been requested to do so by the 1597 Parliament) and got rid of the worst monopolies (she had been using them as a form of patronage) and allowed the commons to take some of the other disreputable ones to court.
But otherwise very helpful, thanks!
But otherwise very helpful, thanks!
Don't worry about it, C is quite easy to get with just a basic argument and some support from he rebellions.
What I usually do is make a point, then back it up with as many real examples as possible. Give me a question and I'll try a write an expanded essay plan for it. Should be useful for both of us!
What I usually do is make a point, then back it up with as many real examples as possible. Give me a question and I'll try a write an expanded essay plan for it. Should be useful for both of us!
nka389
Don't worry about it, C is quite easy to get with just a basic argument and some support from he rebellions.
What I usually do is make a point, then back it up with as many real examples as possible. Give me a question and I'll try a write an expanded essay plan for it. Should be useful for both of us!
What I usually do is make a point, then back it up with as many real examples as possible. Give me a question and I'll try a write an expanded essay plan for it. Should be useful for both of us!
ah thanks... hopefully i will beable to pull atleast a pass grade out, but really struggling.
what about this one.....
June 2006
"not evey rebellion was a total faililure although evey rebellion ended in defeat for the rebel." Assess this view of Tudor rebellions.
I was thinking of mentioning something about Wyatts although not succeeding fully but did actually keep Phillip of Spain away from succession?
I have no idea
'Not every rebellion was a total failure although every rebellion ended in defeat for the rebels.' Assess this view of Tudor rebellions.
Intro: Say what you conclusion is gonna be. It will show the examiner what your line of argument and structure will be. So, yes most of the rebellions did not achieve any of their aims, however some achieved some part of their aims or achieved them indirectly. And yes pretty much all of the rebellions ended in defeat of the rebels, apart from the Amicable Grant.
First paragraph: "Total Failures" (We agree with the question)
Yes, most of the rebellions failed to achieve their aims and were defeated by the monarchy. (After making a point, I usually unload everything I know about rebellions) So, our first sentence is true because:
1486 - Lovell and the Stafford Brothers failed completely. This is a minor one.
1487 - Simnel failed to usurp the throne. The rebels were defeated by the King.
1492-99 - Warbeck failed to usurp the throne. Executed in 1499
1489 - Yorkshire, the subsidy was not lifted. The rebels were defeated.
1549 - Western Rebellion, failed because the prayer book was not changed. The government religious policies were not changed to more conservative ones. The rebels were defeated by Lord Russell.
1549 - Ket's... hmm, it failed because... i dunno have to look into this... The rebels were defeated by the royal army though.
1554 -Wyatt's failed, because the marriage still went ahead. Wyatt and his army defeated.
1595 - Oxfordshire, failed because it failed to attract any support and the three guys were executed.
1601 - Essex failed and was executed.
Paragraph 2: While on the face of it some rebellions failed, in fact they did achieve SOME of their aims. (We reveal the more subtle side of the argument) Unload examples:
1497 - Cornish, although the rebels were defeated at Blackheath, the subsidy was not collected. Thus, while the rebellion might seem as if it failed, it did in fact achieve its aim.
1536 - PoG, failed in bringing Catherine of Aragon back to the throne, failed to stop the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but it did make Henry change the Act of 10 Articles into Act of Six Articles, which was much more conservative. It also resulted in the strengthening of the Council of the North.
1569 - This is a weak point. Northern Earls failed completely. It did not depose Elizabeth, did not restore Catholicism. However it resulted in strengthening of the Council of the North, just like the PoG.
Third paragraph: We diagree with the question.
Some rebellions succeeded in achieving all of their aims and were not defeated.
1525 - Amicable Grant led to the end of war with France and the Grant was dropped. Noone got killed. The rebels triumphed.
1553 - Weak point, but Northumberland did succeed in putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days. After this "successful" rebellion, however, Mary overthrew him with a rebellion of her own.
Conclusion
Yes, most of the rebellions failed to achieve their main aims and ended in defeat. However, quite a few rebellions managed to influence government policy and hence achieve some of their aims. Amicable Grant is an example of a completely successful rebellion, however this should be seen as a deviation and abnormality. It was just one rebellion in the whole century.
Intro: Say what you conclusion is gonna be. It will show the examiner what your line of argument and structure will be. So, yes most of the rebellions did not achieve any of their aims, however some achieved some part of their aims or achieved them indirectly. And yes pretty much all of the rebellions ended in defeat of the rebels, apart from the Amicable Grant.
First paragraph: "Total Failures" (We agree with the question)
Yes, most of the rebellions failed to achieve their aims and were defeated by the monarchy. (After making a point, I usually unload everything I know about rebellions) So, our first sentence is true because:
1486 - Lovell and the Stafford Brothers failed completely. This is a minor one.
1487 - Simnel failed to usurp the throne. The rebels were defeated by the King.
1492-99 - Warbeck failed to usurp the throne. Executed in 1499
1489 - Yorkshire, the subsidy was not lifted. The rebels were defeated.
1549 - Western Rebellion, failed because the prayer book was not changed. The government religious policies were not changed to more conservative ones. The rebels were defeated by Lord Russell.
1549 - Ket's... hmm, it failed because... i dunno have to look into this... The rebels were defeated by the royal army though.
1554 -Wyatt's failed, because the marriage still went ahead. Wyatt and his army defeated.
1595 - Oxfordshire, failed because it failed to attract any support and the three guys were executed.
1601 - Essex failed and was executed.
Paragraph 2: While on the face of it some rebellions failed, in fact they did achieve SOME of their aims. (We reveal the more subtle side of the argument) Unload examples:
1497 - Cornish, although the rebels were defeated at Blackheath, the subsidy was not collected. Thus, while the rebellion might seem as if it failed, it did in fact achieve its aim.
1536 - PoG, failed in bringing Catherine of Aragon back to the throne, failed to stop the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but it did make Henry change the Act of 10 Articles into Act of Six Articles, which was much more conservative. It also resulted in the strengthening of the Council of the North.
1569 - This is a weak point. Northern Earls failed completely. It did not depose Elizabeth, did not restore Catholicism. However it resulted in strengthening of the Council of the North, just like the PoG.
Third paragraph: We diagree with the question.
Some rebellions succeeded in achieving all of their aims and were not defeated.
1525 - Amicable Grant led to the end of war with France and the Grant was dropped. Noone got killed. The rebels triumphed.
1553 - Weak point, but Northumberland did succeed in putting Lady Jane Grey on the throne, even if only for 9 days. After this "successful" rebellion, however, Mary overthrew him with a rebellion of her own.
Conclusion
Yes, most of the rebellions failed to achieve their main aims and ended in defeat. However, quite a few rebellions managed to influence government policy and hence achieve some of their aims. Amicable Grant is an example of a completely successful rebellion, however this should be seen as a deviation and abnormality. It was just one rebellion in the whole century.
nka389
... 1497 - Cornish, although the rebels were defeated at Blackheath, the subsidy was not collected. (1) Thus, while the rebellion might seem as if it failed, it did in fact achieve its aim.
1536 - PoG, failed in bringing Catherine of Aragon back to the throne, failed to stop the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but it did make Henry change the Act of 10 Articles into Act of Six Articles, which was much more conservative. (2) It also resulted in the strengthening of the Council of the North ...
... 1497 - Cornish, although the rebels were defeated at Blackheath, the subsidy was not collected. (1) Thus, while the rebellion might seem as if it failed, it did in fact achieve its aim.
1536 - PoG, failed in bringing Catherine of Aragon back to the throne, failed to stop the Dissolution of the Monasteries, but it did make Henry change the Act of 10 Articles into Act of Six Articles, which was much more conservative. (2) It also resulted in the strengthening of the Council of the North ...
(1) - i may just be being very very dense, but i seem to have it in my head that this subsidy was actually collected, it was the yorkshire one that was abandoned? have got my rebellions mixed up?
(2) - i'm not sure i would argue that Henry changed these articles because of the PofG, he always did pretty much what he wanted to do, unaffected by other people. i'm not sure six articles were a direct result of the rebellion, so much as Henry acheiving what he wanted from the reformation (divorce and money) and then realising that actually he was quite catholic.
Personally, I always thought both the Oxfordshire and the Cornish subsidies were collected, but the mark scheme for this question says:
On the face of it, all rebellions ended in failure and yet, as the more discerning candidates will appreciate, some rebellions achieved some of their aims. The best examples are the cornish rebellion and Amicable Grant protests, which saw no further tax impositions.
It also says: the peasant revolt of 1536 (which i assume to be PoG) led to Henry VIII recoiling from making more radical religious changes. (which, i'm guessing, is expressed by the change from 10 to 6 articles?)
I'm pretty crap with this course
On the face of it, all rebellions ended in failure and yet, as the more discerning candidates will appreciate, some rebellions achieved some of their aims. The best examples are the cornish rebellion and Amicable Grant protests, which saw no further tax impositions.
It also says: the peasant revolt of 1536 (which i assume to be PoG) led to Henry VIII recoiling from making more radical religious changes. (which, i'm guessing, is expressed by the change from 10 to 6 articles?)
I'm pretty crap with this course
oh sorry, guess i'm wrong 
- mebbes the subsidy wasn't exactly abandoned, but in the future he didn't really impose any more?? who knows...
but i don't think i agree with the mark scheme on the PofG one (always a good thing hehe), i really don't think Henry would have been affected by it... he did say he was going to consider their demands, but then at the first oppertunity (more outbreaks of disorder in yorkshire) he ignored them completely and carried out executions.
but this is me, and that's the mark scheme so i'd prob go with the mark scheme hehe...
- mebbes the subsidy wasn't exactly abandoned, but in the future he didn't really impose any more?? who knows...but i don't think i agree with the mark scheme on the PofG one (always a good thing hehe), i really don't think Henry would have been affected by it... he did say he was going to consider their demands, but then at the first oppertunity (more outbreaks of disorder in yorkshire) he ignored them completely and carried out executions.
but this is me, and that's the mark scheme so i'd prob go with the mark scheme hehe...
laced
My book says that in the Yorkshire rebellion "Henry failed to raise any tax" How confusing!
How confusing!i'm pretty sure that yorkshire was exempt from the subsidy in the end, even though Henry stopped the rebellion, i think he still chose to act leniently (early in his reign, authority quite weak, needed support of yorkshire people with scotland).
Yeah, I suppose.
Reading up on the PoG - my analysis would be that the rebels failed to achieve any of their main aims/demands (e.g.the Dissolution of the Monasteries continued - there were no moansteries left by 1540) but they achieved some of their smaller demands (e.g. the appearance of the Bishop's Book, which restored some conservative practices that had been missing from the Ten Articles). So it wasn't a complete failure, though ending in defeat of the rebels.
Reading up on the PoG - my analysis would be that the rebels failed to achieve any of their main aims/demands (e.g.the Dissolution of the Monasteries continued - there were no moansteries left by 1540) but they achieved some of their smaller demands (e.g. the appearance of the Bishop's Book, which restored some conservative practices that had been missing from the Ten Articles). So it wasn't a complete failure, though ending in defeat of the rebels.
i get that the rebels may have been happy about this, but was it really a direct result of the rebellion? act of six articles came into play three years after the rebellion...
(sorry, i don't really know why this bothers me hehe
)
(sorry, i don't really know why this bothers me hehe
)
My teacher emphasised the point that one of the successes of PoG was that it made Henry go from 10 to 6 articles, so until today I thought that was so =/
I guess I'm just going to make it sound really vague like "it can be argued that PofG made Henry...bla-bla" or "Some historians argue" Something like this should get the marks, as the examiners are supposed to be marking positively and after all this is history, so nothing is certain and any argument goes kindathing
And does anyone know anything about the Council of the North?
Erm, I just read the Fellow book and it says that it's the Yorkshire Rebellion that stopped the subsidy =/ wtf, the mark scheme is wrong? great, very encouraging
I guess I'm just going to make it sound really vague like "it can be argued that PofG made Henry...bla-bla" or "Some historians argue"
Something like this should get the marks, as the examiners are supposed to be marking positively and after all this is history, so nothing is certain and any argument goes kindathing And does anyone know anything about the Council of the North?
Erm, I just read the Fellow book and it says that it's the Yorkshire Rebellion that stopped the subsidy =/ wtf, the mark scheme is wrong? great, very encouraging
Related discussions
- A-level History Study Group 2023-2024
- What Should I pick for my Year 13 History Option
- predicting the a level aqa history papers 2024
- OCR A-level History British period study and enquiry: All exams 10th Jun 2022
- AQA a level history predictions
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- tudor paper prediction 1485-1603 paper 1C
- A level tudor paper 23rd of may
- OCR A-Level History Unit 1 (Y101-Y113) - 9th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A to 1L) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- rate my a level options for y12 in sept
- Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 13 June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 3 (Y301-Y321) - 23rd MAY [Exam Chat]
- Revision resources
- a level history help
- Any Predictions for AQA A-level 1C Tudors paper?
- OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 1 (Y101-Y113) - 7th JUNE [Exam Chat]
- books for a level crusades and modern britain
- History A level question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
AQA GCSE History Paper 1 (8145/1A/A-1B/E) - 15th May 2024 [Exam Chat]History study help
65
104
Last reply 1 day ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 2 (9HI0 2A-2H) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]History study help
112
293
Last reply 5 days ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]History study help
155
410
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR GCSE Ancient History Paper 1 (J198/01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
Edexcel A Level History Paper 3 (9HI0 30-39) - 11th June 2024 [Exam Chat]History study help
116
378
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 1 (Y101-Y113) - 7th JUNE [Exam Chat]History study help
68
152
Last reply 1 month ago
AQA GCSE History Paper 2 (8145/2A/A-2B/D) - 4th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]History study help
143
568
Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 1 (1HI0 10-13) - 15th MAY [Exam Chat]History study help
66
164
Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel GCSE HISTORY PAPER 2 (1HI0 2A-2W) - 4th JUNE [Exam Chat]History study help
68
175
Last reply 1 month ago
OCR A-Level HISTORY PAPER 2 (Y201-Y224) - 11th JUNE [Exam Chat]History study help
56
101
