Elizabethan's galore. (1 Viewer)

[Wooz]

Just a specifc thread for those Elizabethans out there coz it's the 2nd most common case study after JFK.

I was just wondering how you answered question 2:

It was pretty straight forward apart from religion as there are no orthadox historians, i used 3 areas of study religion and policy, culture/golden age? and construction of identities and gender.

Religion
Marian legacy
Act of Uniformity and Supremacy
A.G Dickens
Elton Puritan Choir
Haigh's criticism of Elton

Culture/Golden age
I used the interpretations of Elizabethan drama, elitist and popular culture and Elizabeth for this, I used R. Strong, Neale, Camden, Haigh.

Construction of identities and gender
Popular culture, Elizabethan portrature, contemporary, present i even mentioned the film's Elizabeth, and Elizabeth: the Golden age directed by Shakher Kapur.
Roy Strong, Camdan, William Cecil(Lord Burghley)


BTW: I was only guy out of 9 people, the rest did JFK im pretty happy i did Elizabeth it was so much easier than JFK, Im finished w00t!!!

 

[navelj]

Hi, i found your thread. You know what i did, which historians did you do. I would have to say that from the perspective of religious policy i could hardly find any debate or "challenging accepted interpretations" - so who did you use? Most likely Christopher Haigh???

 

[Wooz]

Hi, i found your thread. You know what i did, which historians did you do. I would have to say that from the perspective of religious policy i could hardly find any debate or "challenging accepted interpretations" - so who did you use? Most likely Christopher Haigh???

C. Haigh and A.G. Dickens. on the Marian legacy and on the 'Puritan Choir'.

 

[navelj]

Hey it sounds like you went all over the place - aren't you meant to focus on some areas and i wouldn't have done the film Elizabeth because Kapur is not a historian. If you did do all those areas of debate did you: 1) link them to the question, and 2) write enough?? How much did you write??

 

[tessery]

yeah i only did 2 areas of debate, Identity/Gender and Religion with three historians: Neale, Camden and Haigh - and just that took me a bit over an hour to write!

i thought the question was fine once you thought about it, i kind of argued that historians attempt to understand the past, however they are clouded by context and thus unable to interpret and understand it clearly. and for the second half of the quote, i said that they attempt to understand through challenge, but again they often reject interpretations that came before them due to context (haha i really wanted to put in context, it was basically all i talked about lol)

did anyone else argue anything similar?

 

[navelj]

I said - in response to tessery - that contexts change and therefore influence historians to challenge old interpretations formed in different contexts.

 

[Wooz]

Changing interpretation in history is often spured by popular culture, David Starkey/Simon Shama have made a great documentary histories on elizabeth.

Also Susan bassnett and Babra Mervyn explore the implication of the Elizabeth R 1971 and Elizabeth 1998, movies are very much an influencing force behind history, otherwise people wouldn't have interest in Elizabethan history in todays culture in the general sense vice versa. Thus popular culture is an interpretion which serves historical rememberance.

Nope i focused on 3 and it did not go all over the place it was succinct and well structured, i planned what i set out during the trial and i got 23 the highest mark before.

 

[navelj]

sorry if i attacked you - but how do you go into depth with so many perspectives - i thought they want you to show detailed knowledge of the evidence used by historians to create their perspective.

 

[Ademir]

sorry if i attacked you - but how do you go into depth with so many perspectives - i thought they want you to show detailed knowledge of the evidence used by historians to create their perspective.

There are different approaches possible when answering questions. the question said AT LEAST 2. its entirely feasible to do 3 and get really good marks, I'm sure alot of people did.

70% of mine was on religion and 30% on gender, I feel i did okay. I can understand if someone did 3 and did them well.

 

[isabelta]

yeh i argued along those lines as well.. but i kinda said that historians aim to understand the past, but their understanding is defined by their contextual and ideological backgrounds, and because society continually changes historians challenge the old interpretations and create an understanding defined by their context.

 

[Wooz]

sorry if i attacked you - but how do you go into depth with so many perspectives - i thought they want you to show detailed knowledge of the evidence used by historians to create their perspective.

That's alright, write extremely fast? lol, you can with 3 it's hard but i managed to write 3-4 pages on each.

 

[mallie89]

yeah i only did 2 areas of debate, Identity/Gender and Religion with three historians: Neale, Camden and Haigh - and just that took me a bit over an hour to write!

i thought the question was fine once you thought about it, i kind of argued that historians attempt to understand the past, however they are clouded by context and thus unable to interpret and understand it clearly. and for the second half of the quote, i said that they attempt to understand through challenge, but again they often reject interpretations that came before them due to context (haha i really wanted to put in context, it was basically all i talked about lol)

did anyone else argue anything similar?

I did the same areas of debate but without Neale

Yeah I argued the same, that context clearly affects the writings of the historian.. But I did take the viewpoint that Camden was more reliable than Haigh simply as a result of Haigh's desire to change all the views of QEI.

 

[zoe11]

my Elizabeth essay was a bit iffy but i found there was debate between historians such as haigh and post modernists like frye...by using those there was significant differences in interpretation concerning her identity and religion

 

[wendolina]

Yeah I did two areas of debate:
1) construction of her identities and gender
2) her political and administrative leadership

But the thing is I did so many historians...when I wrote it up I didn't know I didn't need so many and I couldn't stand to cut out all my hard work ahhah so I kept most of them and made sure I had one from the earliest to the present and most recent historians and also that they contradicted each other:

[Camden, Neale, Elton, Haigh] - leadership debate
[Levin, Doran, Montrose] - identities debate

Hopefully I didn't ah...stuff up with that haha

PS Anyone looking for excellent summaries or historians including summaries of their purpose, background and their views let me know! I'll send you my email. For $5 and postage you'll be set for the year!