What was family life like – Model answers to February half term booklet

Elizabeth I – How do I answer the questions?

3 mark question

 1 mark for identification of a relevant and appropriate way the illustrator displays what the question
asks e.g. power, wealth
 1 mark for basic explanation of this
 1 mark for development of this explanation.

5 mark question

 Pick one thing in the image you want to investigate in relation to the question and frame it around an
enquiry question with a second order concept e.g. investigate the cause of something, diversity of
something, change in something etc.
 Explain what aspects could be researched and how you would research it.
 Use evidence to help to frame the enquiry.
 Refer back to interpretation A

12 mark question –

AO4 Analyse, evaluate and make substantiated judgements about interpretations (including how and why
interpretations may differ) in the context of historical events studied.

 Explain the similarities/ differences with the interpretations.

 Use the content of the source to explain the differences – PEE.
 Compare the origin and purpose and explain how this could affect the interpretations.

20 mark question –

AO1 Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key features and characteristics of the periods studied.
Maximum 5 marks

AO2 Explain and analyse historical events and periods studied using second-order historical concepts. Maximum 5
marks

AO4 Analyse, evaluate and make substantiated judgements about interpretations in the context of historical events
studied. Maximum 10 marks

 This is different to an 18 mark question as you are evaluating an interpretation that is in the question.
You need to evaluate this interpretation and decide whether you agree/ disagree. To do this you need to
examine it and provide evidence to support/ contradict it.
 You must provide a substantiated judgement in your conclusion – this means use evidence to support
whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation.
 Oldest son – how is this
shown?

The parrot
suggests children
The puppy and monkey should copy the
suggest children were behaviour of
playful but had to learn to adults.
control their behaviour.

This image above shows Lord Cobham and his wife Frances (right) and their six children. On the left the youngest
child is sitting on his aunt’s lap.

Using this knowledge answer the following questions –

6a. In interpretation A the illustrator portrays the importance of family. Identify and explain one way in which the
illustrator does this (3)

The illustrator displays the importance of family by showing how the large family are having their portrait painted
and the clear roles of each family member in the portrait. This shows how family is important as they want to
remember their family by the portrait and also shows they were wealthy to do this. In the portrait painted the father
is stood taller than all displaying his importance within the family.

6b. If you were asked to do further research on one aspect of Interpretation A, what would you choose to
investigate? Explain how this would help us to analyse and understand everyday family life in Elizabethan
England? (5)

I would investigate whether having large families was typical throughout Elizabeth England and this would help to
understand everyday life in Elizabethan England. I would do this by examining records that exist from the time and
both burial and baptismal lists to examine who was born and who died. Furthermore by examining portraits by
gentry family it could show if all gentry families were large. For gentry families, who had a lot of money, due to
normally owning land, they could afford a lot of children. However most Elizabethan families were quite small. This
was because, although due to a lack of contraception, people had a lot of children, many normally died and lived
short lives, due to a lack of medical care. In total 25% of all children died before they were 10 and therefore although
the image is typical of a gentry family, it is not of all families in Elizabethan England. However the portrait in
interpretation A shows the family to be stern and cold, this was not the case for most families as Elizabethan families
formed strong bonds with their children and parents showed grief when their children died. Therefore by examining
whether having large families was typical this would help investigate everyday family life.

Task –

Highlight:

 Where they have outlined what they will investigate.

 Where they have said how they will investigate it.
 Where they have used own knowledge.
 Where they have referred back to interpretation A
What second order concept are they using?

Cause/ consequence

Change/ continuity

Diversity

Similarities/ difference

Significance

6a. In interpretation A the illustrator portrays poverty in Elizabethan England. Identify and explain one way in
which the illustrator does this.

"The poor is very innumerable, and live most miserably: for I have seen them eat the pickle of herring and
other stinking fish: nor the fish cannot be so stinking nor rotten, but they will eat it and praise it to be more
wholesome than other fish or fresh meat. In mine opinion there be no such people under the sun for their
hardness of living."
Richard Chancellor on the Muscovites (1580)

The illustrator portrays the poverty in Elizabethan England by stating how the fish the poor eat is ‘stinking ’ and how
they ‘eat it and praise it.’ This therefore shows the poor could not afford to buy much food and would appreciate
everything they got. This therefore indicates how the price of food was expensive and it may be there was not
enough to go around due to the increased population which led the poor to eat rotten food they could find.

6b. If you were asked to do further research on one aspect of Interpretation A, what would you choose to
investigate? Explain how this would help us to analyse and understand poverty in Elizabethan England? (5)

If I was asked to further investigate one aspect of interpretation A I would chose to investigate the difference in food
between the poor, middling sort and gentry and examine the diversity of the types of food. I would do this through
examining archaeological remains of bones and food leaftovers found at Elizabethan sites and through
contemporary written records of what people ate. This would indicate that the poor, making up 50% of the
population, would eat porridge and rye bread, and some meat if it could be afforded, however during bad times may
eat nothing, which led to starvation. Through examining burial records it is clear these increased in the 1580s which
demonstrates the lack of food the poor ate, as shown in interpretation A that meant they ate ‘stinking fish.’ However
in comparison to the gentry, making up 2% of the population, they would hold banquets and feasts, and eat a range
of fish such as salmon, and meat, such as pheasant. Furthermore by examining the middling sort, most who were
farmers, they ate a lot of meat and vegetables, but would not eat meats such as exotic birds or fish, like the gentry. I
would therefore want to examine the diversity of food ate to a greater extent as this is a clear indicator of how poor
people lived and examine why this occurred.

Task –

Highlight:

 Where they have outlined what they will investigate.

 Where they have said how they will investigate it.
 Where they have used own knowledge.
 Where they have referred back to interpretation A

What second order concept are they using?

Cause/ consequence

Change/ continuity

Diversity

Similarities/ difference

7. Interpretations B and C both focus on the issue of poverty in Elizabethan England. How
far do they differ and what might explain any differences? [12]

Interpretation B – J.Pound, a historian who wrote a book in 1978 called‘Poverty and Vagrancy in Tudor England.’

‘Above the level of the absolutely poverty stricken in the city were those who possessed sufficient goods to have
them recorded in an inventory, albeit one whose total value was less than £10. Sixty per cent of these individuals
lived in houses which had between three and five rooms; only one quarter lived in those with two or less. A few had
animals, such as cows, pigs, horses or chickens.’

Interpretation C –Extract from a website - https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/poor-laws/. The

website focuses on social welfare and the extract is taken from one section titled ‘English poor laws.’

‘In 1601, England was experiencing a severe economic depression, with large scale unemployment and widespread
famine. Queen Elizabeth proclaimed a set of laws designed to maintain order and contribute to the general good of
the kingdom: the English Poor Laws. These laws remained in force for more than 250 years with only minor changes.
Essentially, the laws distinguished three major categories of dependents: the vagrant, the involuntary unemployed,
and the helpless. The laws also set forth ways and means for dealing with each category of dependents. Most
important, the laws established the parish (i.e.,local government), acting through an overseer of the poor appointed
by local officials, as the administrative unit for executing the law.’

Remember –
Introduction – 1-2 sentences about the issue of poverty
Paragraph 1 – analyse interpretation B
Paragraph 2 – analyse interpretation C and compare to B
Conclusion – how similar/ different are they

Task - As you go through this answer highlight:

 Where they compare

 Where they quote from an interpretation
 Where they explain
 Where they talk about who made the source and why they may be different
 Where they use own knowledge.

Both interpretations discuss the issue of poverty but differ as B focuses on those who lived above the ‘absolutely
poverty stricken’ showing some people had wealth and C focuses on Elizabethan government and what they did to
deal with the issue of poverty.

Both interpretations acknowledge poverty existed, as shown when B says ‘above the level of poverty stricken’ which
shows many people were in hard times and made up the labouring poor and some may have been vagrants.
However the main body of the interpretation focuses on how some had goods above ‘£10’ which enabled them to
have it written in an inventory. Poor people would not be able to have goods recorded as they didn’t own any and
this shows that some people in society, likely the middling sort, making up around 48% of the population did own
animals with 60% of them ‘living in houses with between three to five rooms.’ This indicates some people had
houses and warmth as many would have fireplaces and some middling households had glass.

However this is very different to interpretation C as it does not focus on the middling sort but on the government
and the laws they passed. It states, ‘England was experiencing a severe economic depression, with large scale
unemployment’ and this shows that it acknowledges a lot of poverty existed, which is similar to B that does the
same. This poverty is likely to be so wide ranging due to the increased wars in Elizabeth’s later years that led to
increased taxes, such as the Spanish Armada that cost alone £161,000 and the wars in the Netherlands totalling £2
million. In total all wars cost £5.5 million which created hardship for the people and led to rising prices of goods and
the increased population led to more mouths to feed, which led to increased vagrancy. However the interpretation
acknowledges the government did something to help when it says, ‘the English poor laws.’ This shows the
government tried to tackle the issue by categorising people into 3 categories which aided in the help they gave and
also by the Poor Law of 1601 that appointed JPs as overseers to help collect the poor relief, a tax given to the poor.
This focus is very different to B that examines how some people had wealth.

The differences in these interpretations could be due to who is writing them. In B it is a historian focusing on
‘poverty in Tudor England’ and therefore this is one snippet examining all the types of people living there and does
not confirm what the whole book is about however it is clear they will examine society as a whole. Whereas C is
from a website focusing on social welfare and therefore will be positive about the measures the government passed,
especially as it states how the laws lasted for 250 years. Therefore the key purpose of each interpretation is
different, despite them both mentioning poverty, they focus on different elements of it.

Overall the interpretations acknowledge poverty and thus are slightly similar but focus on different aspects of it: B
on the middling sort and those who owned something and C on the government laws. However it could be argued
that maybe C is an indication of how the government laws helped the poor to live like those described in B.

WWW EBI

In her 2001 school textbook The Reign of Elizabeth, England 1558–1603, Barbara Mervyn stated that responses to
poverty during the period 1580–1603 ‘reflected a considerable shift in the attitudes of those in government’. How
far do you agree with this view? (20)

Barbara Mervyn argues that the government ‘reflected a considerable shift in the attitudes of those in government’
and to an extent I agree as the government began to acknowledge the problem of poverty as had not been done
before, however some of the laws passed were extremely harsh and did not benefit all, primarily the vagrants.

On the one hand some may agree with Mervyn that there was a considerable shift due to laws passed such as the
1601 poor law. This meant that JPs oversaw parishes when collecting the poor rate, a tax collected from parishes and
given to those who needed it most. However this poor law did not help everyone such as vagrants, and many
widowed women suffered, such as Alice Reade. This is because men were the main breadwinner and without their
support when they died or left, women struggled to get jobs to feed their families and the poor rate was not given to
everyone and did not always help. However the fact it was introduced demonstrates how there was a considerable
shift in the attitudes of government.

Furthermore it could be argued there was a considerable shift in the attitudes of government due to them
categorising the poor: impotent poor, able bodied poor and vagrants. This therefore showed the government
understood there were different types of poverty and they could then deal with those separately. This helped them
when implementing the poor law of 1601. There were two types of relief available, such as outdoor relief where the
poor would be left in their own homes but given money on which to live, or the indoor relief where the poor could
be taken to local almshouses and the ill to hospital. Orphans could be taken to orphanages and the idle poor to
workhouses. This therefore shows the government to an extent tried to help and shows a considerable change.
However the poor law was implemented inconsistently and meant some of the 15,000 parishes benefited but not all.
Parishes were able to interpret the laws how they felt fit and therefore this meant that some did not acknowledge
the law fully. Some towns, such as Bristol, Exeter and Liverpool, obtained local by-laws that established corporations
of the poor: their responsibilities extended over several of the urban parishes within their jurisdiction. Therefore
although the laws were introduced inconsistently and it did not benefit all, there is evidence that the thinking and
attitudes of the government did begin to change, however maybe not considerably.

Evidence to suggest they did not reflected a considerable shift and therefore disagreeing with Mervyn is the fact that
vagrants were harshly punished in the laws passed and this did not aid them but further made their plight worse. For
example in 1572 the law stated that vagabonds above the age of 14 should be whipped and burned through the ear
with a hot iron and anyone above 18 who was already caught on a second offence could be hanged. Furthermore in
1589 the government further tightened the law prohibiting people from sheltering vagrants in their home and they
could be fined for it. This does not show a shift in attitude but again blames the poor for being vagrants when in
reality education would have helped them or providing them a job could have helped. Therefore there harsh
punishments of vagrants is an indication there was not a considerable shift in attitude.

Overall it is clear that even by passing laws to help, even if in theory, more than reality it reflected a considerable
shift in the attitudes of those in government as stated by Mervyn. By the passing of the 1601 poor law and previous
laws and the 1572 law that started the poor rate, it showed a change. However it was not a change to all people as
vagrants were still harshly punished and this was not a shift in attitude.

WWW EBI