Good conclusions usually refer back to the question or title and address it directly - for example by using key words from the title.
How well do you think these conclusions address the title or question? Answering these questions should help you find out.
- Do they use key words from the title or question?
- Do they answer the question directly?
- Can you work out the question or title just by reading the conclusion?
To what extent can Wolsey be considered the master rather than the servant in policy decisions under Henry VIII
"In order to answer the question of whether Wolsey was the master or the servant in policy decisions under Henry VIII, this essay has shown that although Wolsey demonstrated great skill in administration and was an exceptionally hard worker, Henry VIII was still in overall charge. Wolsey could be seen to be a sycophant, courting favour with the King in order to further his own wealth and career. During the early years of Henry's reign, it is possible that Wolsey could be seen as the master, purely because the youthful Henry was caught up in more amusing affairs. However, Henry always devised policy but left Wolsey to carry it out. Henry recognised Wolsey's abilities and utilised them, but whilst Henry could easily remove Wolsey, Wolsey as a servant of the King was not able to remove Henry. In conclusion, the evidence suggests that Henry VIII and Wolsey formed an effective partnership, but Wolsey was always Henry's servant."
To what extent do you agree with the view expressed in the extract on the importance of the New Model Army during the years 1645-1649?
"In conclusion, the Army was the "mainspring of the Revolution and the force that deterred more radical change". However, an ongoing bad relationship between King and Parliament influenced this. If their disagreements and arguments had not reached stalemate, perhaps the Army would not have become such a politicized force.
The Army deterred social radicals though. Groups such as the Puritans, Presbyterians, the Levellers and the Diggers all failed to gain complete control even though they did try. The Army intervened by using force and stop radical succeeding: "This was a revolution in that it involved a change of a political system by force" (Christopher Hill). This quote sums up the situation completely. The political system was changed due to the force of the New Model Army.
Finally, the English Revolution had took place and though the Monarch was restored in 1660, "there could be no question of putting it back to where it had stood before the Civil War" (R.C Richardson), due to the actions of the New Model Army sparking off and making a Revolution inevitable."
Would you agree that the future of the Bourbon monarchy was doomed from the start? Discuss this with reference to the events of 1814-15?
"In conclusion it can be seen that to a certain extent it is not entirely fair to assume that the future of the Bourbon Monarchy was doomed from the start. This was because despite the events that occurred during 1814-15 the economic and social aspects of France outweighed these. It is certain that the election of Louis XVIII was not a very good idea because even though he did make some changes, these did not pacify the people and due to his bad personality he was not well respected as a leader. This will have led to people questioning the future of the Bourbon Monarchy, but it will not have been definitely said that it was doomed for failure."