The Student Room Group

Am I doing my History A-Level coursework correctly?

Hello, I do history aqa coursework and my question is To what extent were rebellions in Tudor England (1497-1600) motivated by religious problems? I've done my 3 primary sources and my two interpretations. Basically, Im done. But...I'm worried that it might not be accepted. I've written about the amicable grant (1525), the western rebellion (1549), the Northumberland rebellion (1553) and finally the northern earl's rebellion (1569). The Tudor period is quite large and I did write about king Henry VII in the beginning but chose to get rid of that paragraph because it was a third interpretation I ultimately chose against using it. On the whole, it's only about 40 ish years of history...do I need to include a rebellion from Henry VII or later in Elizabeth's reign to ensure I'm still hitting the requirements for my nea?
I don't do the same exam board as you but I'd say it's always good to cover the whole period of the question. You could achieve this by talking about the religious context of the earliest period, and how this led to the 1525 amicable grant (not that I'm an expert on Tudor history), not necessarily in a separate paragraph.

I'd advise you to check with your teacher if unsure.
Reply 2
Original post by mandyelicup
I don't do the same exam board as you but I'd say it's always good to cover the whole period of the question. You could achieve this by talking about the religious context of the earliest period, and how this led to the 1525 amicable grant (not that I'm an expert on Tudor history), not necessarily in a separate paragraph.

I'd advise you to check with your teacher if unsure.

Thank you! I will actually re-consider rewriting it with your advice.
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 3
you should mention both Henry VI and Elizabeth to include the full Tudor dynasty
Original post by Nicky_EDC
Hello, I do history aqa coursework and my question is To what extent were rebellions in Tudor England (1497-1600) motivated by religious problems? I've done my 3 primary sources and my two interpretations. Basically, Im done. But...I'm worried that it might not be accepted. I've written about the amicable grant (1525), the western rebellion (1549), the Northumberland rebellion (1553) and finally the northern earl's rebellion (1569). The Tudor period is quite large and I did write about king Henry VII in the beginning but chose to get rid of that paragraph because it was a third interpretation I ultimately chose against using it. On the whole, it's only about 40 ish years of history...do I need to include a rebellion from Henry VII or later in Elizabeth's reign to ensure I'm still hitting the requirements for my nea?


This might be useful: https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/History/AQA-A-level-History-Coursework-Workbook-sample-pages.pdf

This is from AQA website: https://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/history/as-and-a-level/history-7041-7042/subject-content/component-3-historical-investigation-non-exam-assessment-a-level-only

"The centre must complete a non-examined assessment (NEA) title approval form no later than 20 October in the year before the intended completion of the A-level course. The form must detail the title and date range of the proposed historical investigation for each student. The teacher must state which examined components will be studied. This form must be submitted to AQA for review. AQA will check that the proposed historical investigation title, when combined with the examined components, meets the following requirements:
* the proposed title is set in the context of approximately 100 years
* there is no overlap with the content of the options studied for the examined components
* all three components together cover a chronological range of at least 200 years"
You could always bring in the Cornish Rebellion (1497), Yorkshire (1486) and potentially Perking Warbeck, Stafford/Lovell and Edmund de la Pole.
These would be easy ways to disagree with the question as the first two were money/war related and the others were more so to do with Lancaster vs York rather than religion.
Then you could potentially sway into the argument that they only became religious when Henry broke from Rome and started to 'attack' Catholicism and how the uncertainty of the countries' religion was tied to this need for Henry to appear Protestant but remaining Catholic himself (his will being catholic is an easy way to evidence this).
This may be completely the wrong direction of your question sorry :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending