• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Source 1 is a meeting between MPs and army officers held shortly after the battle of Worcester in 1651. In this source we can see that there is a mixed view of what to do know that the King was gone

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Andrew Carroll Pass Paper History a) Source 1 is an extract from the memories of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who was an MP and a member of the Rump Parliament. Automatically we have to notice that the events that he tells us about might not be true because it is his memories of an incident that happened 31 years before he publishes his findings, so the exact details might have been forgotten and change to what he either thought happened or what he wants us to think happened. Source 1 is a meeting between MPs and army officers held shortly after the battle of Worcester in 1651. In this source we can see that there is a mixed view of what to do know that the King was gone, either to turn England into a Republic or to have some sort of settlement government with a Monarch. ...read more.

Middle

b) c) Source 2 is a picture from a royalist pamphlet showing Charles as a man who died for his beliefs. Straight away you have to recognise that since this is a picture source different historians might view it in different ways and see different things/ meanings. From source 2 historians can see that since this was a pamphlet issued and bought by many in the Rump parliament itself showed that even then it was still not fully revolutionary and was still had some sort of monarchist feelings still there, so it meant that they might have not been fully committed to the actually cause of the rump parliament. So this is a good source in the sense that it shows us that there might have been some of the Rump who might have not been fully committed to what they were set out to do. ...read more.

Conclusion

In source 4 it tells us that the general view over the country was that people were glad that parliament had collapsed, because they had failed to repay loan made during the civil war and fulfilling promises that they had made and also saddling the country with a war against the Dutch. So overall form the source we can see that the view is that collapse was meeting with appreciation, but when it come out how useful it was to explain the collapse of parliament it really isn't that much useful because it mostly explains that people were happy it had happened, but it doesn't really explain way it did happen so when it comes to how useful this source is a historian has to look beyond the face value of this source to try and find what they want to know. d) ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Assess the validity of the view that the Rump and Barebones parliaments had no ...

    Nearly all had some form of administration experience. Thus, as Coward has written, the Barebones were not a "rabble" and had political competence. Political competence there might have been but was the achievement of any sort? Lynch writes that the "Barebones represents Cromwell's attempt to achieve stable rule in England".

  2. How do the poets in 'Charlotte O'Neils song' and 'Nothing Changed' show their feelings ...

    Or, they could continue working and if they didn't like the way they were treated it would be easy to leave and find better work. They were also able to earn a lot more than in England. 'Nothing's Changed' is a far more angry poem.

  1. Use the source and your own knowledge to explain what were the

    defeated Lambert Simnel, he could not be so confident that he would manage it again. The fact that Perkin Warbeck gained the support of James IV, Charles VIII and Maximilian Habsburg was what worried Henry the most. Again it was more a matter of the way other powers had responded

  2. How far do Sources 2 and 3 challenge the view given in Source 1 ...

    This is suggesting that the officers should be talked about and remembered highly whereas Source 1 disagrees labelling them as untrustworthy as it states ?They were not men whom I would have entrusted with a junior officer?s sentry duty in the field?.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work