-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------January 2005

June 2005

January 2006

June 2006

January 2007

June 2007

January 2008

June 2008

Jan 09

The End of the Yorkists 1471-1485 (a) How successful was Edward IV in ruling England in the period from 1471 to

his death in 1483? [45] Focus: Analysis of a major problem of government. No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates should evaluate a range of factors before reaching a balanced conclusion. Candidates may suggest that Edward was unsuccessful as he did not leave an undisputed succession, but it is likely that this will be balanced against other areas of success. The areas of success may include issues such as the nobility, the reassertion of royal power from 1471 and economic and diplomatic issues. Answers may consider Edward’s ability to crush the Lancastrian threat and his ability to strengthen his position through his friendship with Charles the Bold of Burgundy and his treaty with Louis XI of France. Edward was able to gain the Neville lands, adding to his resources. He was able to secure the royal finances and it is likely that this will play a large role in many answers, but there were still some problems with the nobility (Clarence), but generally he was able to re-establish control.

Examiners comment

There was a generally good level of knowledge about the topic. The rule of Edward IV was understood and the successes he had as a king were readily identified. The general opinion seemed to be that he failed in two respects: to pass on the throne to his son uncontested and there was some sense that his foreign policy failed because he did not pursue conquest. Finance played a large part in many answers, but there was little mention of foreign policy, other than the French treaty or of the Lancastrians.

6(b) Assess the reasons why there was so much opposition to the rule of Richard III. [45] Focus: Assessment of an important historical phenomenon. No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates should evaluate a range of factors before reaching a balanced conclusion. Richard was widely admired at his accession, with a good reputation as a soldier and administrator. The fate of the Princes in the Tower created opposition but Richard did defeat the rebellion of Buckingham. The alleged illegality of Richard’s accession will give the opportunity for candidates to discuss fully events of 1483, but it is unlikely that answers that consider only the illegal seizure will achieve a high band. Some answers might claim that Richard did not seize the throne illegally and this can form the basis of an effective answer. Some candidates will identify the sources of opposition; it was mostly from the factious nobility rather than the populace. The death of his son was a blow; it encouraged the opposition because of the threat to his ability to establish his dynasty. He tried to win over Parliament and curbed forced loans but other financial exactions, necessary to strengthen his position, made him unpopular. Although he enjoyed support in the north and Ireland, this counted little against the conspiracies of dangerous nobles. Richard’s plan to marry Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV, after the suspicious death of his wife, Anne Neville, made him unpopular. Some powerful nobles such as Buckingham and Northumberland opposed him either for real or imagined slights. The Lancastrians remained implacable and found a champion in Henry Tudor. Candidates who focus on the usurpation should not be penalised.

Alternative explanations are possible and examiners must be open to alternative approaches. If in doubt, consult your Team Leader.

Examiners comment

6b) Most candidates found this question to be straightforward. Many answers focused on the usurpation and few mentioned Richard’s financial administration. The Princes in the Tower and the rumours of their fate received some attention, but the better students questioned the sources of these rumours. The death of Richard’s wife also received some attention as did the problems with the southern nobility. There was little consideration given to the events between the summer of 1483 and 1485, which might have helped to explain why Richard failed to develop substantial support.

7 The Reign of Henry VII 1485-1509 (a) To what extent was Henry VII a ‘modern ruler’? [45]

Focus: Assessment of a description of Henry VII’s monarchy. No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates should evaluate a range of factors before reaching a balanced conclusion. Answers should focus on the nature of Henry’s kingship, but it must be remembered that any discussion of ‘medieval’ and ‘modern’ must be in the context of the period 1485-1509 as candidates are not expected to show knowledge or understanding of earlier or later periods, although valid wider references will gain credit. Some answers may argue that Henry was a medieval king, he claimed the throne by inheritance, stressed continuity through court ceremonial and tended not to inaugurate new institutions. Henry relied to a large extent on traditional methods, but he also used middle class men as advisers, rather than the nobility. The nobility as a class became less important in central government, although they remained influential in the provinces. His Council was not modernised in its functions. Institutions such as parliament did not change. The concept of kingship did not change; Henry enforced his traditional powers. In arguing that he was a modern king candidates might argue that he took more personal control, improved the bureaucracy and gave England a greater degree of stability than had been known for a long time. However, his success in crushing opposition and the effective organisation of government signified a more modern approach. Henry VII was not an innovator, certainly not a radical. He was interested in government and had the personality to enforce his policies. In this he resembled the best ideals and practices of medieval monarchs. However, he did strengthen royal courts and weaken the nobility in ways that could be described as modern. Some might claim that the Council Learned in Law was different. The reorganisation of existing courts represented more change than continuity. Local administration saw the roles of existing sheriffs and JPs transformed.

Examiners comment

The quality of responses to this question was often dependent upon what candidates understood to be a ‘modern ruler’; those who defined this in their opening paragraph and used it to refer back to were often the candidates who accessed the higher levels. There were many areas for candidates to consider and although most focused on the issue of government and law and order, there were other answers that looked at the issues of trade and foreign policy, particularly the avoidance of war. Many answers focused on his relationship with the nobility and suggested that his use of ‘new men’ was a sign of a modern ruler as the ‘supernobles’ of the Medieval period lost power and influence. There was also consideration of issues of law and order,

particularly his use of JPs. The better answers saw a balanced approach and showed that Henry still used the nobility and that parliament was still not a regular feature of government.

7(b) How serious were the threats to the throne of Henry VII? Explain your answer. [45]

Focus: Assessment of a challenge to the Tudor monarchy. No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates should evaluate a range of factors before reaching a balanced conclusion. Candidates are not expected to show knowledge of the period before 1485 but should understand the background to the Yorkist threat. Although Henry VII won a decisive victory at Bosworth his claim by inheritance was not particularly strong and the Yorkists still presented a danger. However, some may argue that after years of civil war many wanted peace and would support a strong king. The major threat came from Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. These had support from various groups in Europe and Ireland but had limited appeal in England. Candidates should discuss how serious to Henry these plots were. In themselves Simnel and Warbeck presented little danger but they provided a focus for the plots of others in England and overseas, such as Margaret of Burgundy. Ireland was sympathetic to the Yorkists. Some candidates might also discuss the issue of Lovell and Suffolk. The King also took a number of steps to weaken the Yorkist challenge, for example he married Elizabeth of York, but this was only a partial solution. The King took a number of steps to limit the danger of Yorkist plots. The Earl of Warwick, son of Clarence, was imprisoned until the conspiracies of others provided an excuse for his execution. He handled the nobility partly by using them to govern the country and by using strong measures against those who might become too strong, thus weakening possible support. Some answers might also consider the strengths of Henry as he was capable personally and a strong king was perhaps the best guarantee against rebellion and civil war. Henry was able to defeat the threats by firm action when military and diplomatic methods were necessary.

Examiners comment

Although this question was quite popular, many answers were very narrow in their focus. There was a great deal that could be discussed, but many chose to deal only with Simnel and Warbeck. This could be successful, but only if answers broadened out and linked them into the threat from abroad, particularly the Yorkist challenge around Margaret of Burgundy. There were some answers that looked at other challenges from the Yorkists-Lovell and Suffolk- and this did enable candidates to display a better perspective on the period. Some answers looked at a wider range of issues and brought in the challenge from overseas and the threat of the nobility. There some excellent answers that also considered the issue of the succession and were able to consider the weakening of Henry’s position after the death of Arthur and Elizabeth and link this to the later challenges. At the top levels some were able to suggest that the threat was more perceived than real, although this was balanced against the weakness of his claim and that Stoke could have been another Bosworth.

June 2009

4 How important was the weakness of Henry VI in causing the civil war in England in the period from 1450 to 1470?

No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. The king’s personality was not one that enabled him to control the nobility. He was open to influence, often to unsound advice, but was also obstinate. Candidates might also consider the state of his mental health, which was variable, representing considerable weakness at the head of state. However, his weakness (an undermighty king) should be balanced by a consideration of the problem of ambitious nobles (overmighty nobles), such as Warwick, Somerset and York. However, it should be noted that the number of alienated nobility should not be exaggerated; most of the aristocracy continued to support Henry VI, suggesting an unwillingness to go to war. However, as a weak king he was unable to control, even less resolve, the rivalry between the ambitious nobles. Candidates might also discuss the role of Margaret of Anjou. The loss of land in France might be seen as an issue as some nobles had dual-landholding, but found that with defeats in France they were subject to the King of France and this placed a strain on their relationship with Henry.

Examiners comment

4. Many candidates found this question challenging, often struggling to address the factors and as a result produced answers that were largely narrative. There were a handful of candidates who wrote about the whole period in the question, ie they wrote about Edward IV’s first reign and this took them away from factors such as the weakness of Henry VI as a political and military leader, the pernicious influence of faction in the 1450s, the role of Margaret of Anjou and the ambition of Richard of York; the key factors which would help to form a strong answer. There were also a number of candidates who focused excessively on the period before 1450 and recounted in detail the events of the minority at the expense of the real focus. There were also answers that restricted their answers to the ‘weakness of Henry VI’, but better answers discussed this alongside other factors before reaching a judgement. Some also argued that Henry chose to marry Margaret and that a stronger personality might have handled York and Warwick more effectively. It was also noticeable that there were a number of answers that were generalised with little precise supporting detail.

5 ‘Edward IV was more successful as a king in his second reign than his first’. How far do you agree with this view?

No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Many candidates are likely to agree with the proposition as Edward was deposed at the end of his first reign, but died a natural death at the end of the second. However, some might challenge this view and argue that his failure to ensure a peaceful succession to his son means that the second period was no more successful. Candidates are likely to consider his relations with the nobility; in the first period of his rule he was dependent upon some powerful nobles such as Warwick and that created problems. He also tried to win over opponents by conciliation, for example Somerset and Percy, but that failed and both continued in rebellion. The problem created by Warwick was the most serious as it resulted in Edward’s deposition. Some may argue that this was balanced by the support he did win from some group of nobles. However, some will argue that he was no more successful in his second period of rule as he created super-nobles who were only controlled by the sheer force of Edward’s personality. Some candidates will consider how successfully Edward dealt with the problem of finance during his two periods of rule. In the first period he faced a lack of money, which he tried to solve by means of benevolences and forced loans. This was reasonably successful as most paid without complaint. In the second period he was financially very successful and actually died leaving the crown solvent.

Examiners comment

5. There were a number of candidates who got confused between the two reigns and this resulted in some very confused attempts at analysis, whereas stronger answers compared the two reigns effectively. The better answers to this question adopted a thematic approach considering issues such as Edward’s relationship with the nobility, foreign policy and finance and ensured that there were cogent references to both the 1460s and 1470s in each paragraph. Some candidates wrote less well about the financial aspects, for example there were statements asserting the finance through the Chamber was better than through the Exchequer without explaining why this should be so. In dealing with the nobility, Warwick and Clarence tended to dominate answers, although better answers often made reference to the use of Richard of Gloucester, Buckingham and Hastings to control troublesome areas. The question of the Woodville marriage attracted considerable attention, but the difficulty of the succession in 1483 less so. Although an equal balance between the periods was not essential, it was vital that candidates did not simply dismiss one of the periods of rule and most were able to give roughly equal treatment to the reigns. There were very few candidates who disagreed with the statement.

How effective was Henry VII in dealing with the Yorkist challenges to his throne?

No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. It is likely that most answers will focus on the Simnel and Warbeck rebellions, but better answers might also consider the de la Pole threat, the Yorkshire tax rebellion and Suffolk. There might also be mention of the situation in Ireland and the general threat from Yorkist nobility who often found themselves under heavy financial burdens. Many candidates are likely to argue that Henry was successful as none of the challenges were able to remove him from the throne. They may also argue that Henry was successful as the Yorkist cause was reduced to using pretenders. However, the Simnel rebellion did force Henry into battle only two years after Bosworth and it was not impossible that a similar result might have occurred. Having defeated Simnel, Henry was able to show mercy and defuse the situation by parading the real Earl, the success of his policy can be seen when Warbeck rose and failed to gain support in Ireland, unlike the Simnel rising. Some answers may also suggest that foreign support for the Pretenders, particularly from Margaret of Burgundy, made it more difficult for Henry as he was unable to deal with her. Henry, it can be argued, did deal very successfully with Warbeck as his attempts at invasion were pathetic failures, and he was also able to keep him on the move between European courts. This might be balanced against the difficulty Henry had in capturing Warbeck, Scotland’s willingness to give him aid and marry him to the king’s cousin. Some candidates might consider some of the other steps that Henry took to limit Yorkist danger; there might be consideration of his marriage to Elizabeth of York and the imprisonment of the Earl of Warwick, son of Clarence, until the conspiracies of other plots provided an excuse for his execution. The other rebellions were handled quite well, although tax concessions had to be granted.

Examiners comment

6. Although many candidates saw this as the easiest of the three questions in this section, there were a significant number of very limited answers. There were many who allowed their answer to become simple narrative accounts of the Pretenders and did not link their knowledge of events to the key issue of ‘how effective.’ Even in the analytical answers, it was very noticeable that many candidates were unable to progress beyond an analysis of the Simnel and Warbeck challenge, whereas the best answers considered a wider range of issues and focused on ‘how effective.’ There was also some confusion over the term ‘Pretender’ and many seemed to see it in a very narrow manner and did not widen it to include any claimant to the throne. Most candidates understood the role of Margaret of Burgundy, Henry was given credit for his diplomatic efforts to make Warbeck persona non grata in France, Burgundy and

Scotland, although it was surprising how few candidates explicitly realised that this indicated Warbeck was not in England very much and so it was difficult for Henry to deal effectively with the revolt by laying his hands on him.

Jan 2010

4 How successful was Richard III’s government of England? No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Some may argue that Richard was not successful in his government of England because he lost at Bosworth, however this point needs to be fully explained if it is to be relevant. Candidates could point to his failure to win the support of the nobility and that his government was over-reliant on northern nobility at the expense of the southerners. Answers may also consider his relationship with parliament and the issue of finances, this may lead to a discussion of benevolences and candidates might discuss whether his approach was successful. Some may argue that his government was not successful as he did not possess a wide enough basis of power because of the nature of his accession and therefore lacked sufficient patronage. There may be some consideration of the nature of his accession, but this needs to be linked to the question.

This was probably the least popular of the questions in this section and it did not attract many strong answers. Many candidates were unable to engage with the precise wording of the question. Instead of focusing on government, there were discussions of whether or not Richard was a ‘bad king.’ Others focused excessively on the short time span of his reign and therefore argued that his government could not have been successful. There was some knowledge of his dealing with the nobility, although some confused his reliance on northerners with a reliance on southerners. In many instances knowledge was limited to the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower or the Battle of Bosworth and this also encouraged a number to adopt a simplistic approach and suggest that his reign was a failure.

5 How effectively did Henry VII deal with England’s domestic problems? No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. It is likely that better answers will identify the domestic problems that Henry faced and then consider how well he was able to deal with them. Many answers are likely to focus on the problem of the Yorkist challenge, particularly Simnel and Warbeck. Candidates may argue that these were dealt with successfully as both were defeated and some may also argue that the threat was reduced by his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Candidates may also consider the problem of the nobility, some may conclude that Henry’s policy was successful as he prevented the emergence of over mighty subjects and through his policy of bonds and recognisances was able to reduce their power, but at the same time win loyalty through such methods as the Order of the Garter. However, others might argue that his last years were so oppressive that the country was close to civil war. The question of the succession might also be discussed and some may argue that initially this was successful with Arthur and Henry, but that Arthur’s death left the succession hanging by a thread. There might be some consideration of the financial problems and how well they were solved.

This was quite a popular question, but many of the answers focused on a very narrow range of issues, sometimes simply dealing with the Pretenders. A narrow approach did have a depressing impact on AO1b as candidates’ focus was, at best, fair. There was occasional consideration of overmighty subjects,

but very few were able to link the measures adopted by Henry to the concept of effective and there seemed little awareness that Henry was in considerable danger of alienating them and even provoking unrest by the end of his reign. There were some who suggested that because Henry survived and handed the throne on to his son he must have been effective. Surprisingly, there was very little consideration given to financial issues.

6 ‘Marriage agreements were the most important achievement of Henry VII’s foreign policy.’ How far do you agree? No set answer is looked for but candidates will need to address the question. Candidates should consider a range of achievements and evaluate their relative importance in order to access the higher levels. Some may argue that the marriages were important as they brought him European recognition, which was important because of his weak claim, and also gave him an ally with the most powerful nation-Spain. It might also be argued that the marriage of Margaret to James brought at least short term peace with Scotland and also removed the potential threat of Warbeck, which was important to Henry. However, others may consider that his most important achievement was achieving security from the Yorkist threat, although it might be argued that this was only achieved at the end of the period. There might be some consideration of how successful he was in dealing with the threat presented by Margaret of Burgundy. Some might argue that financial gain was the most important achievement given the nature of his finances and use the French pension to support this and also the development and protection of trade, although the latter issue can be debated.

This was a popular question and attracted a wide range of responses, although there were some candidates who were confused about the actual marriage arrangements that were made or virtually ignored the named factor and focused on issues such as trade. There were few who were unsure about what marriage agreements achieved and some simply saw it as automatically achieving an end to conflict. Many weaker answers focused on Arthur’s marriage to Catherine and failed to deal with the Scottish match. There seemed little awareness of the short term peace it brought and the removal of the potential threat of Warbeck. There were some answers that focused excessively on the named factor and ignored other issues, for example the invasion of France was hardly considered. Issues that might have been considered included security, and this could have linked to marriage agreements, financial gain and the development and protection of trade.

June 2010

4 ‘The power of the nobility was the most important cause of unrest in the period from 1450 to 1470’. Do you agree?

A reasonable number of candidates attempted this question. Candidates often found it difficult to structure their essays, so that they covered the events of Henry VI and Edward IV’s reign. However, a simple structure, comprising a solid discussion of the power of certain nobles followed by examination of other factors including the weaknesses of Henry VI could have been followed. Candidates found it easiest to deal with the reasons why unrest broke out under Edward, citing Warwick’s dissatisfaction and the Woodville marriage, amongst other reasons. Unrest in Henry VI’s reign was often harder going; the weakest candidates were very confused about the different protagonists. There were often brief descriptions of Henry VI’s incapacity but candidates did not find it easy to link this with unrest. Very few candidates were able to look at factors in turn and analyse their significance across the entire period. A number of candidates did not pay heed to the dates in the question and included consideration of Richard III’s and, occasionally, Henry VII’s reigns (and not simply by way of comparison to earlier, relevant issues). Similarly, a number of answers considered ONLY the reign of Henry VI. However, there appeared to be others who did not like the look of the factor in the question and so wrote the prepared answer on causes of the Wars of the Roses. In some instances those who did focus on the nobles, did not always keep to the problem of their power. It was their ambition which was the problem. One waited in vain for a reference to extensive land holdings, affinities or bastard feudalism.

5 How serious a threat to Henry VII’s rule was the Yorkist challenge? This question was popular and handled better than question 4. Many answers concentrated on Simnel and Warbeck and ignored other Yorkist threats. A few candidates were able to go beyond examining Henry’s response to each rebellion/pretender, examining his more positive steps to engage the Yorkists, such as his marriage to Elizabeth of York. Most candidates knew about the pretenders though one or two can still confuse Simnel with Warbeck. There was also considerable confusion from some candidates as to who the Pretenders were claiming to be. Some thought Simnel and Warbeck made identical claims but at different times; some thought they were both simply the two “Princes in the Tower” and were vague about who these were. What distinguished the better candidates was their understanding of the nature and breadth of the Yorkist challenge. This comprised the remaining loyal followers of Richard III, notably Lovell who tried a rising with the Staffords in 1486. It also included, more seriously, the surviving descendants of the York family, particularly the earl of Warwick and the de la Pole brothers. Very few candidates could name the three relevant de la Poles, John, earl of Lincoln, though one candidate wisely wondered why he was supporting Simnel at Stoke, Edmund de la Pole, earl of Suffolk who was handed over to Henry in 1506, and Richard de la Pole who remained a threat into Henry VIII’s reign. Many could assess the patronage of Margaret of Burgundy for Yorkist claimants, and note the support of France and Scotland when it suited them. Ireland was still referred to as foreign.

6 The handling of finances was Henry VII’s most successful domestic achievement.’ How far do you agree? The question proved largely straightforward for all calibres of candidate as it was clear that various factors were to be assessed in addition to finances. The degree of understanding of the financial system and methods under Henry VII determined the success in debating the main factor. Candidates usually addressed a range of different factors, although the level of detailed support varied across scripts. Many candidates attempted to link Henry’s handling of finance with his handling of the nobility but this was rarely little more than a brief comment or description. A few candidates claimed that Henry was very successful in restoring law and order but failed to substantiate such views to any great extent. Control of retaining was a very popular issue which cropped up regularly. Bonds and recognisances were often mentioned but not in depth, suggesting that candidates did not always understand their use. In general, answers tempted to attempt analysis and knowledge but not with great success or to any depth. Scripts occasionally dwelled on foreign policy issues, without linking them to domestic issues. A number of responses tried to weigh up Henry’s success with finances compared to other aspects of his rule. This could prove effective. However, a significant number of those

candidates included foreign policy. This could be made to be relevant if, for example, a clear link was drawn to impact on finances or dynastic security but often this link was not made.