AQA A Level History 1C The Tudors: England 1485-1603 7042/1C - 06 Jun 2018

okay well that was a weird paper.

i thought the source question was great, loads to talk about etc and easy to find things convincing and unconvincing

then the essays???
1) the wording of the h7 rebellion question was odd (local issues?) and i couldn't work out if they wanted us to talk about plots or not too
2) what was the point of only asking about half of h8's foreign policy when the statement would have worked for the whole period
3) i feel like poverty was a really obscure question, like why not talk about socioeconomic issues as a whole or culture or the effectiveness of legislation

idk i did the h8 question and the poverty question because i really couldn't work out how to answer the rebellion question. i'm so glad i learned a heck load of statistics about poverty because i would not have been able to answer it otherwise. but i don't know anyone else in my school who did it because we aren't really taught as much on it than like religion.

WHY WASN'T RELIGION ON IT???

stupid questions

okay well that was a weird paper.

i thought the source question was great, loads to talk about etc and easy to find things convincing and unconvincing

then the essays???
1) the wording of the h7 rebellion question was odd (local issues?) and i couldn't work out if they wanted us to talk about plots or not too
2) what was the point of only asking about half of h8's foreign policy when the statement would have worked for the whole period
3) i feel like poverty was a really obscure question, like why not talk about socioeconomic issues as a whole or culture or the effectiveness of legislation

idk i did the h8 question and the poverty question because i really couldn't work out how to answer the rebellion question. i'm so glad i learned a heck load of statistics about poverty because i would not have been able to answer it otherwise. but i don't know anyone else in my school who did it because we aren't really taught as much on it than like religion.

WHY WASN'T RELIGION ON IT???

stupid questions

Guys!!!! is pretenders rebellion or NOT? I only mentioned cornish and yorkshire rebellion and hoare-lovell since lambert simnell and Perkin warbeck are pretenders? I evaluated by saying that dynastic condditions where also present and then presented an argument that lack of control resulted in Rebellions? Have I sevrely limited myself what do you think!!!

7 rebellions...? All I could think of was Yorkshire, Stafford/Lovell, Cornish + the de la Pole rebellion, what other 3 did you get? I didn't count Warbeck as there was no real rebellion from him, I did say he latched onto the Cornish rebellion though (therefore making it partly a political rebellion).

I thought everything went pretty well to be honest, sources were pretty easy to analyse. I did the rebellion question/Henry's foreign policy.

For the rebellion question I wrote about the four rebellions I knew. I disagreed with the statement and said the Stafford/Lovell rebellion refuted the argument posed by the question, I said Yorkshire agreed, I said Cornish went both ways (yes it was taxation, but the rebels marched to Blackheath, close to London so therefore perhaps signalling intent to usurp Henry - more than local issues + Warbeck latched onto the rebellion) and then the de la Pole rebellion was again, a dynastic issue.

For Henry's foreign policy I disagreed with the statement again, I used examples like his first incursion into France (Battle of Spurs) but I did somewhat argue that Wolsey's resulting treaty with Louis XII (marriage to Henry's sister) could be interpreted as agreeing but it was reactionary rather than Henry's desire to seek peace. After that I just talked about the Treaty of London, Holy Roman League, Field of Cloth of Gold, Treaty of Bruges, Amiens + 1522 invasion of France. I felt like I hardly wrote anything for that question though, wrote about 2 pages.

I thought it was a very decent paper, I agree with a lot of the points you guys have made in this thread though. Plus... no religion? No Edward/Mary?! That's like 60% of the course gone!



Nice to read someone else wrote a lot of the same. I didn't mention the Battle of Flodden, because it was a reaction to the invasion by the Scots - wasn't really a way to seek peace but it wasn't as if Henry directly invaded the Scottish either.

Lambert Simnel was involved in the Earl of Lincoln rebellion (battle of stoke) and Perkin Warbeck was involved in the Cornish rebellion (exploited it). I think you need to mention the rebellions, but just having the pretenders should be fine as long as you've explained it well.

Guys!!!! is pretenders rebellion or NOT? I only mentioned cornish and yorkshire rebellion and hoare-lovell since lambert simnell and Perkin warbeck are pretenders? I evaluated by saying that dynastic condditions where also present and then presented an argument that lack of control resulted in Rebellions? Have I sevrely limited myself what do you think!!!

I feel like I really messed up in the exam. Everyone keeps saying Mary and Edward weren’t covered at all yet I mentioned them in the poverty question. I talked about Mary’s poor harvests and influenza and then Edward and debasement of the coinage which Elizabeth replaced but still inflation flourished and I then spoke about Elizabeth’s legislation all in relation to population growth. When they said later sixteenth century, I assumed this was 1550’s onwards and not regarding Henry VII or Henry VIII. I’m really upset and worried now as I thought it went ok initially.

Anyone else talk about the Amicable Grant for the rebellion question? Hoping this was right

It depends on how you define rebellion- I’d personally say Warbeck imposture and Simnel were rebellions. They bothe forced the king to act and were a risk to him; Simnel at Stoke Field and Warbeck with Scottish force and Burgundian people. Also, I don’t think writing about pretender will penalise us; otherwise you could realistically only write about Yorkshire, Cornish and Lovell. If you look online/books- they are categorised as rebellions too. Dynastic reasoning is what I used too! I also argued foreign affairs- Margaret/James helped Warbeck for example. On the flip side I said local issues like Tax- linked it with cloth trade decline due to Burgundy embargo.

I wouldn’t say you severely restricted yourself- it was a very specific question- the wording was vague on “local issues” but it was very specific to rebellions.

Thats a shame because I know loads for Warbeck and Simnel but in the exam the question threw me definitely havent got the level 5 band answer and maybe not even level 4 which seriously sucks becuase thats what I usually get maybe If I have strong interpretation and level 3 I can still push an A but probably not an A* which is definetly annoying. Grade boundaries will be high as well because they where all beautiful questions just did a stupid eff up

I feel literally the same, in all the essays I was writing before hand I was getting all level 5s but then for some reason I didn't think simnel was a rebellion (probably because it wasn't in that section of the book) so I only wrote about Cornish and Yorkshire so waffled a lot.

But like you say, if we can get 25/30 on the extract and 18/25 on the other essay then we could get as low as 12 on the rebellion essay and still get an A - it was 48/80 last year and I doubt they'll raise it more than 10%.

Anyone else talk about the Amicable Grant for the rebellion question? Hoping this was right

Even if you managed to get 15-17 on all the essays you can still get an A.

I’m really upset because i worked really hard these past few months and was getting A’s and A*’s but i feel like this exam threw me off. Extract question was okay but the essay questions....wtf. I regret not choosing the poverty question because for henry vii rebellions i waffled a lot. and henry viii foreign policy i had a lot of knowledge but i completely messed up on structure because i was stressed and running out of time. What level do you think i would get on that foreign policy question if i had accurate and relevant knowledge but the answer wasn’t very well structured? I had an intro that matched with the conclusion but i ended up writing two big paragraphs that spoke about the holy league, marriage alliance with france, treaty of london etc. but it wasn’t even in order.

i’m just really gutted about how that exam went :/