GCSE & A-Level Revision Resources

In the period 1548 and 1549 there had been a number of minor riots and skirmishes in various localities over England. The most common form of protest was the throwing down of hedges. In the past this has been interpreted as a protest against the enclosure of land. However, Jennifer Loach offers the interpretation that it was a means of protesting and that the protest was not necessarily directed against the hedge.

There was unrest in the Midlands, and also in Somerset, Wiltshire, Hampshire,Kent, Sussex , Essex, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Yorkshire, Cambridgeshire, Rutland and Leicestershire. Two major rebellions occurred in Devon and in Norfolk - the Western Rising and Ket's Rebellion.

When the council heard that there was trouble in the West country, they at first treated it as they had done the other minor rebellions, and left it in the hands of the local lieutenants to deal with. They had no idea that it would escalate to such proportions, culminating in a battle with government forces.

• The first signs of trouble were at Bodmin on the 6th June 1549.
• Arundell, a local gentleman is persuaded to lead the rebellion by the local priests.
• By the 10^th peasants were demonstrating in the area. A local gentleman Sir Hugh Pollard attempted to send the demonstrators home.
• 12^th June, another gentleman, Hellyons, tries to send the dissidents home, but is beaten to death.
• The Cornishmen move on to Devon.
• 20^th June the Privy Council hears word of a 'commotion'. The rebels have assembled at Crediton. Lord Russell and Sir Peter Carew are given the task of dealing with the problem.
• Sir Peter Carew arrives in Exeter to meet with the rebels. He finds them arrogant and refuses further negotiations with them. The commons' mistrust of the gentry is given fuel!
• The rebels send a set of articles to the Privy Council.
• 25^th June the rebels set out for Exeter. Important as it has a port and an armoury.
• Exeter does not give in to the rebels. They try to mine the city walls but their plan fails.
• The second set of articles is drawn up.
• 8^th July Battle of Fenny Bridge - more of a skirmish than a battle.
• 9^th July Russell considers withdrawing as he hears that Wiltshire and Hampshire had also risen (they hadn't).
• 10^th July the Privy Coucil gives Russell a free hand to crush the rebellion. Russell decrees that any gentleman found to be inactive in helping to crush the rebellion will be treated as a traitor.
• Battle at Clyst St. Mary.
• 5^th August another battle on Clyst Heath. Lord Grey is moved to comment that he witnessed at this battle, the most ferocious fighting he had ever seen. The rebels are defeated and head back to Cornwall. Ringleaders are rounded up and hanged. Those clerical leaders that are found are hanged in their 'popish vestements', including Robert Welch.
• 15^th August the remaining rebels and Arundell are taken out at Stamford Courtenay.
• 17^th August the rebellion ends with a massive defeat at Stamford Courtenay, 4 000 rebel casualties.

There were two sets of demands made by the rebels. Different things are mentioned in the two. The first sets of demands are more concerned with social and economic concerns than the second set.

The first set of aticles demands changes, which will repeal the tax on sheep and cloth, countering dearth.

However, by the time that the second set of articles is written, the grievances are mainly of a religious nature. There is not a completes copy of the first set of articles for historians to analyse, and there are various versions of the second set of articles. Therefore, we can not be 100% sure of the full extent of the grievances.

The second set of Articles:

• Holy laws of the past should be observed. Those who use the new service shall be treated as heretics.
• The Six Articles to be used again so that religion is restored to the time of 'our Soverayne Lord Kynge Henry the VIII'.
• We will have the mass in Latin. The priest will communicate on our behalf.
• We will have the sacrament hung over the high alter. Those who do not consent will be treated as heretics 'against the holy Catholyque fayth.'
• Baptism can be administered in the week as well as on Sundays.
• Images and ceremonies to be restored.
• "We will not receyve the newe servycee because it is but lyke a Christmas game." Matins and masses to be said as before. Services will not be in English, since many of the Cornish cannot understand English.
• Prayers for souls in purgatory to be said.
• In order to stop heretical thinking all of the Bibles in English to be called in.
• Cardinal Pole should be pardoned and sent for to serve in the King's council.
• Gentlemen should not have more than one servant. Any more servants he has should be appropriate to the amount of land that he has.
• Reinstate two abbeys in every county. In order to do this they demanded the names of commissioners.
• Rewards for Arundell and Henry Braye. They ask to have arms.

The Protector Somerset was, firstly, Edward Seymour, brother of Jane Seymour. This made him Edward's uncle.

He was also the Earl of Hertford, and you may hear him refered to in this way.

He was given the title of the Duke of Somerset by Edward, shortly after the young boy became King and this is the title most used by historians. But it is important to remember that before 1547 he was not 'Somerset'.

He had served in Henry's council, and was well liked by the dead king. He probably earned Henry's respect through his military exploits. By 1547, he had a reputation as a fine soldier, having seen action in France and in the north.

He was one of the sixteen men appointed to rule as the regency council. However, he quickly rose to prominence, presenting himself as the 'natural' leader of the council due to the fact that he was the King's uncle. This must have appeared reasonable to those in council, as corporate rule by sixteen nobles was bound to prove difficult, even if most of them were of a reforming disposition, and not only did the young king have no father, but his mother was dead, and there were no paternal uncles.

Indeed, his contemporaries appointed him leader of the council 'for the conduct of better business'. (It is highly likely that all this had been planned with the help of Paget, another leading noble). By the end of February (1547) he was Lord Protector with powers to appoint and dismiss members of the Privy Council.

This section comes so high up on the list because it was always Somerset's priority.

The international position was such in 1547 that England was at war with France, and relations with Scotland were also very strained. To make matters worse, the French had an alliance with the Scots, which made their northern enemy all the more aggressive in their dealings with England, and it meant that England could easily find itself fighting a war on two fronts, which would be extremely costly.

Somerset was bound by Henry's will. Henry had made a bid for the Scottish throne by betrothing, his then six year old son, Edward, to the young Scottish princess, Mary (later Queen of Scots - don't confuse her with Mary Tudor, who was Edward's half-sister). An arrangement which was finalised by the Treaty of Greenwich, 1543.

However, the engagement was broken by the Scots, and it was arranged that Mary would marry the Dauphin. With the possibility of an alliance with France totally removed, Somerset began his campaign against Scotland. Things went well initially. Somerset and Dudley led their armies on Berwick, and with the aid of a number of foreign mercenaries marched up into the lowlands to defeat the Scots in the Battle of Pinkie (September 1547). But then Somerset did nothing for months, allowing the Scottish to secure French support, and this they did. In June 1548, over 6,000 French troops landed in Scotland. They captured English forts, and secured the safe passage of the princess Mary to France for her impending marriage.

Because of either personal stubbornness, or pressure from the nobility, or fears for the north of England, or because he ignored the advice of council, Somerset decided not to pull out of the conflict, but to press on. All this despite a severe lack of funds. Three more armies were sent to the border. Somerset spent over half a million pounds on the war in the north.

To add to his problems, Henry II of France declared war in August 1549. Somerset's resources were split, and in order to defend Calais and Boulogne, Somerset had to remove troops from the Scottish border. Nevertheless, Calais and Boulogne were not lost.

His protectorship ended with a war in France and a hostile Scottish/French coalition in the north.

The council was moderately reforming, but at the same time, Somerset had to make sure that he kept influential churchmen on his side, thus accommodating radicals like Latimer and Ridley, along with the more conservative like Gardiner. In addition to pleasing these churchmen and politicians, there was a growing radical minority in London and the Southeast. Albeit a minority, these men and women tended to belong to the gentry, and as such could not be alienated. Many of those who had exiled themselves during Henry's reign returned with hopes of not only toleration, but also further ecclesiastical reforms. There was also Charles V to consider. Because the French had allied with the Scots against England, Somerset had to ensure that relations between England and the Holy Roman Empire were at least cordial. This included making sure that Mary Tudor (Charles V's aunt) was not persecuted for her religious ideas and practices.

It was a real balancing act.

The first parliament's repeal of the Six Articles and the introduction of a less severe Treasons Act (which allowed people to discuss religious matters openly) may be seen to represent the amount of pressure and parliamentary support for religious reform. In the same year, 1547, Somerset felt secure enough to dissolve the chantries, the chapels where prayers were sung for the souls of the dead.

However, it was not until 1549 that a major piece of religious legislation was passed. This was the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, and the legislation that went with it, The Act of Uniformity. The aim was again balance. Cranmer was instructed to write a prayer book, which would be acceptable to both radicals and conservatives.

The Prayer Book, by its nature leaned towards Protestantism. It was a book to be used for 'common prayer' - that is to say the congregation communing with God, and not the priest on their behalf. This idea of a personal relationship with God was a radical one, which must have offended those who held on to the old ways. There were no masses to be said for the dead, and the absence of a statement on purgatory. This satisfied neither the reformers nor the conservatives.

The Act of Uniformity stated that:

1. The worship of saints was to be discouraged (but it was not banned).
2. Statues, paintings and other similar artefacts were to be removed from the church.
3. The Eucharist service was still to be in the old form of a Latin mass. There was nothing said about transubstantiation.
4. The same number of Holy Days should be maintained.
5. Clergy should wear their vestements (so no change there either).

As you can imagine, the Radicals felt very strongly that these measures did not go far enough, while they alarmed the Conservatives.

In conclusion, there was a move towards Protestantism under Somerset, but this was slow and cautious, which was a sensible policy. But there was a danger in compromise: that none of the people would be satisfied with the changes, rather than at least one group being pleased. All the same, it was probably, the most successful policy of his protectorship. (But that could say more about the level of failure in his other policies rather than the level of success in this.)

For effects of the Act of Uniformity and the Prayer Book, you need to go to 'The Rebellions of 1549'.

Somerset, by and large, used the systems that were already in place, rather than introducing anything new. He was the leader of a council, he called parliaments, and he made proclamations to introduce new laws when there was no parliament in session. This was exactly the way that Henry VIII had ruled.

Somerset's style of government was immensely personal. He used his own household officials, consequently excluding a number of leading nobles. He issued more proclamations than any of the Tudor Kings. He was stubborn, preferring his own ideas to those of others, blatantly ignoring council on occasions. Even one of his closest allies, Paget, berated him once saying, "I told your Grace the trouthe, and was not believed; well, now your Grace seithe yt what seythe your Grace?"

Lotherington believes that he used government as no more than a rubber stamp.

EN Williams has this to say on the matter of Somerset's style of government:

"In the circumstances, efficient pragmatism would have been better than this high-minded incompetence."

Historians agree that this was his most disastrous policy. Somerset was not a long-term planner. His financial planning was based around the financing of his foreign policy, consequently, he needed the cash straight away.

It has to be said that he was in a difficult position. The crown's revenue stood at only £200 000 a year, which was hardly enough to cover household expenses, never mind a war.

This is how he got the cash:

There was no reform of taxation or of the duties system.

The debasement of the coinage had a dramatic effect on the economy. Inflation was already bad in 1547 and this measure exacerbated the problem. Coupled with poor harvests and the poor state of the Antwerp market, inflation hit very hard. Prices rose while wages remained at the same level.

Somerset felt that enclosures (the practice of amalgamating land and fencing it off) were to blame for the hardships that the poor endured. He sought to decrease the amount of land being enclosed, and indeed became the head of the Enclosure Commission in 1548. All of this led historians of the past to see Somerset as 'The Good Duke' who cared passionately about the welfare of the commons. In actual fact his attempts to reduce enclosures had a minuscule effect on the lives of the people of England, except that is for the gentry farmers who felt that he was obstructing the improvement of their estates.

There was a real concern in this period about the state of the realm. The nobility feared rebellion, and there was much to upset the commons (and the gentry for that matter). There were problems of vagrancy and poverty in the towns as well as the countryside. Latimer and Ridley preached in favour of social reform including more workhouses and hospitals for the poor. The Vagrancy Act, 1547 was possibly not what they had in mind (a 'V' branded on the heads of the 'undeserving' beggars, and a duty for towns to provide more outdoor relief). There was religious ambiguity. A long and drawn out war was being fought in the north, and there was war in France. Then, in 1548 there was a very poor harvest.

There were riots in 1548, and in 1549 there was rebellion, twice.

Paget wrote to Somerset in 1549, "Now Syr, for the lawe: where ys it used in England at libertie? Almost no where."

In the past, Somerset has enjoyed the accolade of 'the Good Duke'. The Protector who cared for his people, who wanted justice for all, and who strived to alleviate the sufferings of the poor. WK Gordon wrote in his book, published in 1968, about how the poor wept at his execution (while the government of Northumberland was 'government by fearful men').

In fact there are three main opinions about his character:

1. He was a genuine humanitarian who wanted to help the poor (S. T. Bindoff and A. Pollard share this view).
2. He was arrogant and self-seeking. He was stubborn and would not heed the advice of councillors. He showed minimal interest in social reform (Dale Hoak and R. W. Heinz share this view).
3. He was typical of a Tudor soldier and statesman. His priority was foreign policy and a continuity of the wars started by Henry VIII (M. L. Bush's view).

The more recent thinking on Somerset has not been as kind to him as in the past. There are fewer apologies. Nigel Heard writes, "what can be said is that he failed to show the leadership necessary for the absence of an adult monarch."

John Guy sees him as vacillating, self-willed and high-minded..."sugar-coating his natural severity with talk of clemency and justice."

Dale Hoak sees him as having "abrasive arrogance".

Traditionally, the period from 1547-1558 has been termed a period of crisis by historians. The Whig historians of the nineteenth century are to blame for this, with their obsession for looking at history in terms of the people who shaped it. Consequently, the reign of a 'sickly minor' followed by a woman could only lead to crisis in the eyes of the Victorian historians. They loved the myth of a 'boy-king'. This judgement stuck for a long time, especially the image of Edward as a sickly Protestant boy waiting to be ushered out of this Earthly existence.

Recently, historians have reversed their thinking on Edward. Historians like Elton, Russel, Sharpe, and more recently, Loach, Haigh, Duffy, Bernard, Williams, Tittler and Hoak, believe that there was far more to this boy than the traditional image would suggest. Jennifer Loach, in a recent article went back to original sources to demonstrate that Edward was not always a sickly child, and indeed, at times not much like a boy at all (but very much his father's son).

Edward had a keen interest in sports. He wrote in his diary frequently about the fights and jousts he had attended, and sometimes fought in. He was also concerned about military matters. He would voice worries about the state of fortifications on the south coast and he wrote lengthy accounts of the battles in Scotland. His warrior heroes were Henry VI, Sir Andrew Dudley, and the Earl of Warwick himself.

The King was not sick until the year before his death, in the months that he was overwhelmed by the chest infection that was to kill him.

There are doubts as to his devotion to the 'reforming cause'. He was certainly educated by Cambridge's finest reformers, and he chastised his sister Mary for following the old Popish was. But as Jennifer Loach rightly points out, "And if as he grew older, he clearly associated himself with what we might call the protestant cause, notably in seeking to exclude Mary from the throne, that perhaps reflects an adolescent's attachment to what he grew up with, to what for him would have been familiar institutions and well-loved pastors, notably Archbishop Cranmer."

To quell the anxiety of having a boy-king, Edward's advisors were under pressure right from the start to create a positive image of Edward. The image that they chose was that of Solomon, son of David. Henry VIII was, therefore, David, who had started to rebuild the temple, but died before its completion. It was up to the son, Solomon, Edward, to finish the task. The parallel with reforming the church was too much for these 'spin doctors' to resist. Edward would complete the reforms that had begun under his father.

Henry VIII's will stated that the regency council appointed to rule during Edward's minority should be made up of sixteen councillors of equal status, in a kind of corporate rule. Henry had not, himself, signed the will, instead the royal dry seal had authenticated it. This could mean that Henry died unaware of the full contents of the document. Even so, the council that was established in the will was not the council that ruled from January 1547.

From the evidence, one is led to the conclusion that a plot was hatched to manipulate the council into electing a 'key group'. The council was not told until the fifth day of Henry's death that the King was dead. And then, a member of the council, Paget, who had been particularly close to the King during his final years, conveniently remembered a conversation that he had had with the dying King.

As a consequence, four leading nobles became the central leaders of the council. These men were: Hertford, Essex, Lisle and Wriotheley. It did not take long for one of these four to assume complete control of the council, of the young King, and as a result, of the realm.

Edward inherited an established system of government, which worked well. At the centre of administration and policy was the Privy Council. Parliaments were called to pass specific pieces of legislation, and to raise taxes.

Faction had been a feature of politics in the reign of Henry VIII, and this aspect of politics was no stranger to Edward's reign.

The localities were ruled from the centre, with nobles acting as the crown's executive in these areas. Supporting their governance of the localities there existed a number of lieutenants and JPs - the roles of whom had been increased under Cromwell.

By 1547 England had experienced part of, you might say the beginnings of, a Reformation in religion. However, there had been a move away from the reforming trend towards the end of Henry's reign with Gardiner's Six Articles, which, in effect halted the religious reforms, and looked more to the 'olde' religion. (Contemporaries did not use the terms 'catholic' and 'protestant', and for that reason it would be anachronistic for us to do so).

There were a number of reformers in the church, like Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops Latimer and Ridley (all of whom were to come to a sticky end in Mary's reign). There were also a number of reformers who had fled abroad in the latter part of Henry's reign to escape persecution. They were ready to return upon the accession of the young reforming king. Alongside, all of these reformers there were also a number of conservatives in the church, who actively resisted reforms made in religion; men like the Bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner.

The contemporaries of England had by 1547, seen the monasteries, large and small, dissolved, along with many chanceries. They had seen the crown take the revenues from the church, and many of the lands that had belonged to the monasteries were now in the hands of the local landowner.

The South East, and especially London, had a number of radicals who were eager for further reforms. In other areas of the country, while there was an acceptance of the changes, sometimes with a little resistance (but the days of the Pilgrimage of Grace were over), there was no real enthusiasm. There was probably more confusion than anything else, as the church in 1547 reflected a continuity with the catholic church in some senses, and yet a clear break from it in others.

The sixteenth century saw a number of social and economic changes. There was a slow, but steady rise of the gentry class, aided in its growth (to a limited extent) by the sale of church lands. There was, in fact, a growth in the population as a whole, with significant gaps when there was a bout of disease or poor harvests. The towns were growing, and this in turn led to problems in housing and vagrancy, coupled with rising prices and unemployment, the authorities in the towns were increasingly concerned with the fear of rebellion. Yet the end of Henry's reign had seen no major revolts.

The economy was not in good shape. It was hit directly by the decline of the Antwerp cloth trade. (Wool was England's main export, by far the most of which went to the low countries.) This hit East Anglia and the West country in particular.

Henry had left his young son with a deficit. He had spent thousands on the wars with France and Scotland (who were in a strong alliance against England). To finance his expensive foreign policy he had borrowed extensively from foreign bankers, he had sold church lands and even some crown lands. All of the money that the crown had acquired from the dissolution of the monasteries had been spent.

• Somerset made agreements with, and probably bribed, councillors in to making him Protector of the realm. 1547 - 1549.

• Somerset's main concern was foreign policy - all other policies followed from this. He put the crown into more debt during his protectorship.

• Historians who like Somerset: M.L. Bush, A. Pollard, ST Bindoff (to an extent).

• Historians who don't like Somerset: Dale Hoak, RW Heinz, Nigel Heard.

• 1549 saw many riots and two rebellions - The Western Rebellion, Ket's Rebellion.

• The Western Rising was mainly directed against the new Book of Common Prayer, but there were other grievances.

• Ket's Rebellion was a riot against the local landowners that was turned into a rebellion under the leadership of Robert Ket.

• Northumberland quashed Ket's Rebellion - this gave him control of the army - which was instrumental in causing the downfall of Somerset.

• Northumberland was Edward's principal councillor from 1549 - 1553.

• This period's main characteristics are: peace with France, stabilisation of the economy, tighter control over the localities.

• He fell in 1553, after backing his daughter-in-law's (Jane Grey) claim to the throne. (Traditionally seen as an ambitious plot by himself. Loades would disagree).

• Mary was well received in London as the new Queen.

• Her first priority was to secure a marriage. There were 3 contenders: Reginald Pole, Edward Courtenay, Prince Philip of Spain. She chose Philip.

• The councillors were afraid for their own positions and made Philip sign a Marriage Treaty.

• Fears of a Spanish invasion, and fears about the marriage in general, amongst other concerns sparked a rebellion early in 1554 - Wyatt's Rebellion. It involved the county of Kent. The rebels reached London. It was a major fright for the Queen and council.

• Mary and Pole had a policy to re-catholicise England. They thought that it would be an easy job. They repealed the religious legislation of Edward's reign in 1553, and the Acts of Henry's reign in 1554. A new Treasons Act made it easy to prosecute 'heretics'.

• Mary's rule saw 300 'heretics' burned at the stake, mostly on charges of possessing seditious literature. Most of the accused were from the SouthEast, especially Kent and Essex.

• There is a historical debate surrounding the effectiveness of the counter-reformation.

• Mary's foreign policy resulted in the loss of Calais. A major blow for England.

Tittler R., The Reign of Mary I

Loades D., The Reign of Mary Tudor

Loach J., A Mid-Tudor Crisis?

Heard N., Edward VI and Mary

Guy J., Tudor England

Elton G., England Under the Tudors

Cornwall JJ, Revolt of the Peasantry

There's an awful lot to learn in a history A level, A/S level or A2 level.

You need to have a considerable bank of knowledge in your memory to take into the examination hall, and you also need to have mastered essay writing skills and skills of handling documents.

One big mistake that some students make is to think that if they read through their notes, this will be enough to get them through the exams. This is not so. There's a big difference between knowing facts and recognising them.

Here are some useful hints on how to revise:

• Make a timeline of events and put it up in your bedroom.
• Make a list of events, cut them up and then try to put them in to chronological order and date them.
• For remembering personalities, try writing a 'This Is Your Life' script for them.
• Use flow charts and spider diagrams.
• Try to reduce your notes to one side of paper for each topic.

No matter how much you know, it isn't going to help if you cannot write under pressure. In most A level papers you will be required to answer a documentquestion and write three essays, all in the space of 3 hours.

It is, therefore, very important that you practise writing to a time limit. Give yourself 40 minutes to write essays at home. This gives you an extra 5 minutes to check through your work. The more of these that you do, the more confident you will feel about writing under pressure, and to time limits.

Also, practise writing essay plans. Try doing some of these once you have finished revising a topic. It's a good idea to get hold of as many past papers from your teacher as possible, so that you have a good idea of the types of questions you will be set, and you will become more familiar with the layout of the paper.

And finally, don't forget those document questions! Again, practise as manyof these as you can, remembering to give yourself time limits.

The study of historiography is about highlighting issues to do with an event or a certain period of time. It is also the study of what historians have to say about these issues, and how they agree or disagree in their arguments.

So, for example, there are many theories about the causes of the First World War. You can find a plethora of historians who have differing opinions about the true causes, from AJP Taylor to Fritz Fischer to Paul Kennedy.

In your notes and your essays you must always refer to the opinions of historians, and it is often useful to quote their writings. However, most examination boards want you to go further than this and critically evaluate their theories.

Critically evaluating historians

Useful hints

When you are making notes always put the name of the historian, the title of the book and the page numbers somewhere.

When you have finished reading, try to make lists of historians who agree on certain issues, and try to find examples of where historians disagree.

Careful reading of both the documents and the questions is essential. Answers sometimes fall short because the student has stopped reading once they have found one answer to the question; you must look at all the information that the source offers you.

Do not dismiss the information that is provided with every source, as it will help you to put the source in context. Look carefully at who wrote the source. Do you know anything about this person, would it mean that the source is written from a certain perspective? What about the date? Had things just changed, had an event just taken place, or was something significant just about to happen?

Not carefully the mark allocation. A question with a low allocation (2 or 3 marks) only requires a short answer.

The questions tell you which documents to refer to. Always refer to the sources the question tells you to. If you are asked to consider all of the documents in your answer do your very best to refer to each one. This will take you up to the higher levels in the mark band. But do not expect to find something equally relevant in each source: the question may be expressed in this way to see whether you can pick out which ones are most relevant.

In addition, if you are asked to refer to 'other evidence', or to include 'your own knowledge', do so.

Explain briefly the following references - two or three sentences will suffice for this answer, no matter how much you know about the topic. 'Briefly' means what it says.

Evaluate - This means that you are required to do more than simply extract information relevant to the question. You have to make some judgement or comment on this evidence.

Assess the reliability - This type of question can be approached in a number of ways. You can test the reliability against other documents, or against what you know. Assess the language of the document - is it emotive? What do you know about the author, or the date that it was written?

Try not to use the word 'bias', not doing may lead to your explanations being more thorough. If you do, make sure you have explained the way in which the source is biased in clear detail.

Words to use:

• Author
• Audience
• Motive
• Purpose
• Propaganda
• Limitations
• Cross-reference
• Interpretation

Quite often you will be asked to construct your own question for your coursework or individual study.

It is important that you don't overcomplicate matters and make the task more difficult for yourself.

Remember that whatever you write you are going to have to construct an argument out of it, so try to start your question with phrases like, "account for", "to what extent", "why did", "what was the most important", or other phrases that would point towards evaluation and analysis rather than narrative.

Don't pick enormous issues, or if you do try to pick an aspect of the issue (like its historiography or the main personalities). You can always limit the extent of your investigation by putting perimeters on it with dates.

You must have a separate file for coursework notes. Some exam boards require you to keep a log of your research progress, and a file containing evidence of your research. Check with your teacher.

Start by reading basic textbooks. Then move on to the more specialised texts. You may also need to include some contemporary sources. There are plenty of books which have collections of these in them.

You will need to belong to a good library. It is more than likely that your school library will not suffice for this task. Some cities have excellent libraries. You may also be able to go to a local college or university library (ask your teacher to ring up and find out).

Don't forget other historical resources around you:

Oral history - if you are doing c20th history you may be able to get hold of some first-hand accounts.
Newspapers
TV and radio documentaries
Physical evidence like viaducts, great houses, castles, architectural sites, etc
And plenty more, use your imagination!

You will probably want to organise the body of your work into clear sections using chapter headings (if these are permitted).

You may chose to put additional evidence like maps and letters in appendices at the back of your project. If so, make sure that they are properly referenced.

Your work should be organised thus,

1. Coverpage
2. Contents page
3. Text
4. Appendices
5. (endnotes)
6. References / bibliography

Some exam boards insist that you footnote your references carefully, but if you can get away with it is much easier to reference your sources within the body of your text (the Harvard method) or at the end in footnotes.

The Harvard Method

This is easy peasy. All you have to do is write the name of the author and the date she/he said whatever you are referring to. For example,

Cromwell's first reaction to Wolsey's fall was 'stunned belief and near despair' (Elton, 1991).

Footnotes & Endnotes

Some exam boards want you to set these out in a certain way, but here's the standard way. (Footnotes go at the bottom of the page, and endnotes go at the back of your work.)

They should be set out like this,

Cromwell's first reaction to Wolsey's fall was 'stunned belief and near despair'

At the bottom of the page:

1. Elton, G., Thomas Cromwell (Headstart History Papers; 1991; 1^st edition), p.7

References/Bibliography

These are set out in the same way that you set out your footnotes, less the page numbers. They should be put into alphabetical order by author's surname.

You have done your reading.

You have made your notes.

You are sat at you desk, and haven't a clue what to do next!

Don't panic! Instead, follow this advice.

Unpack The Question

Pick out key words, events, people and dates to help to focus your answer. For example: to what extent were the rebellions of 1549 examples of local economic uprisings? (incidentally, this should have been done before you did your reading.)

Types of Questions

You need to be aware that there are different types of questions which ask you to do different things. Familiar questions;

"Why", "How" and "Account for" - Give reasons for / explain the methods or processes.

"Compare and Contrast" - Identify both the similarities and differences.

"To what extent" and "Assess the importance of" - Evaluate / judge the amount.

Planning: Introduction

Do not "set the scene". You are not going to tell a story, so don't start with one. Instead introduce the main argument of the answer. Its purpose is to give direction to the essay. Keep it short. Try to start with a quote, be provocative.

Planning: The Discussion

Remember that you need an argument, your essay could begin with "To what extent" or "Assess the importance". Try putting your reasons in a diamond 9.

You must be able to give reasons for your decisions. (There are examples in the various questions sections.)

When planning your paragraphs, try to start with a statement and end with a link back to the question. To help you plan use this table:

Or this one:

Planning: The Conclusion

This is a very important section. Think of your whole essay as a court case. The prosecution and defense have had their say and now we have the summary. You want to win your case, so sum up all your main points in the light of your evidence.

Make sure that you have included the ideas of at least 2 historians (the more the better). Try to show how they agree or disagree.

Demand a mark scheme from your teacher so you can assess your work properly.

Next time

After it has been marked, make a note of the strengths of this essay and highlight targets for your next essay.

Study the question carefully paying attention to its demands and challenges (unpacking).

Make a brief plan of your proposed answer. Make sure that it is focused on an argument. (Use the points/evidence table shown above.)

Begin with a short introduction. Spend ample time on a strong conclusion.

Avoid:

• Narratives where you pour out all that you know.
• Irrelevant information.
• Empty assertion, points made with no evidence to support them.
• Repetition.