Specimen Flashcards
(3 cards)
To what extent was Parliament more to blame than Charles I for the failure of settlement
in the years 1646 to 1649? (45 marks)
Candidates need to consider both the role of Charles and Parliament in the failure of settlement. Charles’s role can be illustrated by his refusal to negotiate and his schemes to reassert his authority, in particular the Engagement. Parliament’s role can be considered from the perspective of the Newcastle Propositions through to a last attempt at settlement with the Newport Treaty. Candidates should also consider how Parliament’s division and Charles’s intransigence saw the emergence of the New Model Army as a political force which proved to be crucial in the politics of settlement. Reference can be made to the Heads of the Proposals and in turn how Charles and Parliament forced the army to become increasingly more radical. This can be particularly illustrated in the context of the Second Civil War, the Vote of No Addresses and the Remonstrance. Candidates can also refer to the Levellers as another factor in the politics of settlement.
To what extent did Charles II fulfil the expectations that existed for his Restoration in the years 1660 to 1667? (45 marks)
Candidates need to outline the conservative reaction that was the context for the restoration of monarchy. In this sense many may argue that the reimposition of traditional rule and the Church of England fulfilled the expectation of the majority that welcomed the restoration. Stronger responses will set this against those who did not welcome the restoration and even those that did but felt that the restoration settlement did not go far enough in reversing the land settlement or dealing with the supporters of the Interregnum regimes. Some may see the disappointment at the settlement as a result of the Declaration of Breda and Charles’s need to ensure that he did not ‘go on his travels again’. The butchery of the bodies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw may be used by some as an example of frustration at the extent of the Act of Oblivion. With regard to the land settlement, candidates may comment that so great was the problem facing Charles Stuart that he was not going to fulfil expectations. Indeed some may comment that in this area Charles did most to disappoint his natural supporters. In terms of the religious settlement the disappointment of moderate dissenters was clear but candidates can stress the role of parliament in reimposing a less tolerant church than Charles seemed to promise at his restoration. Some candidates may also comment on foreign policy failure in the context of the apparent failure of monarchy compared to the successes of Oliver Cromwell.
How did the threat from religious radicalism change in the years 1646 to 1689? (45 marks)
Answers to this clearly cannot be expected to be exhaustive. Candidates should seek to illustrate their argument with a range of examples throughout the period. Judgement in relation to importance is central. Candidates may refer to such examples as the Puritan and Catholic threat to James, most notably the Gunpowder Plot. Some may consider the Civil War in the context of religious radicalism, referring to the Covenanting movement or the radicalism of the New Model Army. It is possible that some candidates may see the dependence of Interregnum regimes on the New Model Army as indicative of religious radicals becoming the state. In this context candidates can assess the new radical threat of groups such as the Ranters and the Quakers. The reimposition of monarchy and conformity in 1660 will be used by many to indicate the limited threat or the changing nature of the threat in the second half of the century. With regard to the post-1660 period some may see the greater religious radical threat coming from the state with the Catholicism of the later Stuarts. William III’s reign may also be assessed in the light of the foreign Catholic threat. Throughout the years 1660–1707 reference can be made to the nature of dissent as well as the increasingly Latitudinarian influence that was to make religious radicalism much less of an issue for the state. Reference can also be made to the Act of Settlement, Abjuration Act and the imposition of tighter control over Ireland and Act of Union.
