AQA A Level History: Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy 7042/1D - 21 May 2019

OMG what the **** was that extract questions?!?!?!?!?

I hope the examiners are ready to hear millenary petition, Hampton court conference, book of sports and king James bible in every single answer. What evidence did other people use for their questions?

I did Q2 and 3 because I went into the exam not knowing the glorious revolution so I wouldn't be able to answer the last question but my restoration essay was full of pure waffle

“How convincing are theses extracts in relation to puritanism between 1603 to 1640” sorry what aqa

OMG what the **** was that extract questions?!?!?!?!?

I hope the examiners are ready to hear millenary petition, Hampton court conference, book of sports and king James bible in every single answer. What evidence did other people use for their questions?

I did Q2 and 3 because I went into the exam not knowing the glorious revolution so I wouldn't be able to answer the last question but my restoration essay was full of pure waffle

Yeah. I thought it was saying Charles II was personally responsible for the Restoration so you talk about other factors that contributed to it, but I heard people say it was something else.

Not even low grade boundaries can save me for this one tbh I’ve got to bang Paper 2

How did everyone do in their coursework? Hoping that will pull up my grade after this awful paper.

Also please tell me I wasnt the only one struggling for time

How did everyone do in their coursework? Hoping that will pull up my grade after this awful paper.

Also please tell me I wasnt the only one struggling for time

What did everyone write about in Questions 2 and 3?

My factors for the radicalism question were 1) breakdown of order during 1640-42 Long Parliament (Exclusion Bill, abolishing Star Chamber and High Commission etc) 2) The radicalising effect of the civil wars and the emergence of the NMA as a haven for religious radicals and the Levellers for political radicals and 3) Charles' duplicity and subsequent radicalisation through the Windsor Prayer meeting in April 1648 and 4) Cromwell's character during the Interregnum (e.g Nominated Assembly, Major Generals, Quakers) but ultimately concluded that the War was the main factor since without it there was no NMA and no religious radicals therefore no Cromwell.

For the Question on Charles II, I wrote about his pragmatism in avoiding clashes over religion and finance through backing down over the Declaration of Indulgence and the Conventicle Act as well as sacrificing his favourites (Clarendon, Cabal, Danby) to avoid attracting criticism like Charles I did with Buckingham. Then of course his success in preventing Exclusion and emerging in a strong position based on Tory support by 1681. But then for counterarguments, I basically criticised his failures in provoking the emergence of Whig opposition due to his pro-French foreign policy and interference in parliament but then also mentioned that without the secret sources of income from Louis XIV in 1670 and 1681 he would never have overcome the financial weaknesses of the crown and that he can't be fully credited because the monarchy was powerful regardless e.g Triennial Act reversed 1664 and Exclusion was never a threat bcs he had the power of veto and dissolution and the restoration had returned bishops to the House of Lords.

Update for everyone due to the Puritan fiasco, my history teacher has written to AQA to complain against the use of 2 religious questions in a paper. Get ur teachers too as well so AQA can rectify

Is 3 the personally responsible? because yeah I got a bit weirded out.

BIG UP LOW BOUNDARIES THO X

looool that source question can absolutely do one. As if I prepared the whole first year to be slapped puritans and civil war political religious radicalism. Only year 2 essay questions too. bruh

Didn’t do the Charles essay but I did the radicalism growth question and wrote basically identical points to that.
Talked about breakdown of govt, then providence then war.
I said breakdown of govt was important but overall war and specifically the politicisation of the NMA was key to political radicalism e.g levellers, Putney debates and then also religious radicalism as it allowed Millenarianism to emerge. But evaluated that by saying how the war led to the rump being in charge which passed acts like blasphemy and adultery.
I rushed the essay pretty badly tbh because of the extracts but managed to scrape thru a fair amount of facts

I talked about richard montagu with a new gag for an old goose. How puritans werent passive cause of their reaction to james failing to censor it and charles making montagu royal chaplain. Also james and the 1621 parliament, tearing up the commons journal after puritans wanted influence on foreign policy before spanish match.

What did everyone write about in Questions 2 and 3?

My factors for the radicalism question were 1) breakdown of order during 1640-42 Long Parliament (Exclusion Bill, abolishing Star Chamber and High Commission etc) 2) The radicalising effect of the civil wars and the emergence of the NMA as a haven for religious radicals and the Levellers for political radicals and 3) Charles' duplicity and subsequent radicalisation through the Windsor Prayer meeting in April 1648 and 4) Cromwell's character during the Interregnum (e.g Nominated Assembly, Major Generals, Quakers) but ultimately concluded that the War was the main factor since without it there was no NMA and no religious radicals therefore no Cromwell.

For the Question on Charles II, I wrote about his pragmatism in avoiding clashes over religion and finance through backing down over the Declaration of Indulgence and the Conventicle Act as well as sacrificing his favourites (Clarendon, Cabal, Danby) to avoid attracting criticism like Charles I did with Buckingham. Then of course his success in preventing Exclusion and emerging in a strong position based on Tory support by 1681. But then for counterarguments, I basically criticised his failures in provoking the emergence of Whig opposition due to his pro-French foreign policy and interference in parliament but then also mentioned that without the secret sources of income from Louis XIV in 1670 and 1681 he would never have overcome the financial weaknesses of the crown and that he can't be fully credited because the monarchy was powerful regardless e.g Triennial Act reversed 1664 and Exclusion was never a threat bcs he had the power of veto and dissolution and the restoration had returned bishops to the House of Lords.