Synopsis
The objective of this essay is to address the vast historical debate regarding the
life and death of Anne Boleyn. In order to narrow this debate into a clear focus,
three enquiry questions were created. These enquiry questions explore three
different aspects of Anne Boleyn’s life in order to determine the reasons for her
demise. The response to the first enquiry question evaluates a range of historical
perspectives regarding Anne’s motivations in marrying Henry. Through
examining the different approaches of historians such as Ives and Warnicke, it
aims to depict how context influences historical argument. It further develops to
illuminate the contrasting aims of historians and historical novelists in order to
demonstrate the impact of such on the truth. In doing so, the question evaluates
a range of contesting viewpoints regarding the circumstances that drove Anne to
her marriage with Henry and addresses how these circumstances reflect her
eventual demise. The response to the second enquiry question evaluates the
extent of Anne’s role in the English Reformation and whether or not it
contributed to her downfall. It contrasts the theories of Ives and Starkey to those
of Warnicke and Bernard. In addressing such content, the response aims to
demonstrate how a historian’s view of Anne’s role in the Reformation is shaped
by their theory regarding Anne’s downfall. The final question examines the scope
of opinion regarding the involvement of Thomas Cromwell in Anne’s demise.
Through examining the role of temporal context, it aims to account for the
differing opinions between historians. It compares the controversial conjectures
of Warnicke and Bernard to the more conventional theories of Ives and Starkey.
In doing so, the final question aims to address the mysteries surrounding Anne’s
swift downfall, and come to a final judgement as to why she was executed.
1. What circumstances drove Anne Boleyn towards her marriage with King
Henry VIII?
In order to determine where the point of blame lies for Anne Boleyn’s execution
it is essential to reflect on her early role at court. Many historians and historical
novelists present contrasting opinions in regard to Anne’s motivations and how
these contributed to her eventual demise. Eric Ives, described by historian and
author Alison Weir as portraying a “Protestant hagiographic view of Anne”1,
suggests that she “married for love”2. He argues that Anne Boleyn and King
Henry VIII attempted to have an “affectionate marriage”3 and thus, asserts that
the circumstances driving Anne to her union with Henry and to her death were
beyond her control. However historian Retha Warnicke, who openly claims, “Ives
and I disagree virtually about every aspect of Anne Boleyn’s life” perceives this
“romantic obsession” to be a direct product of “male fantasies” 4. Warnicke’s
approach to the study of Anne Boleyn utilises her knowledge of the cultural
construction of gender in the Tudor period to draw conclusions that contrast
A. Weir, The Lady in The Tower. 2010. Ballantine Books: New York. (p. 337)
E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. xv)
3 ibid. (p. xv)
4 Philipa Gregory’s Use of Retha Warnicke’s Anne Boleyn. Thirteenth Annual
ACMRS Conference, Tempe, AZ., 2007
1
2
utterly to the views of Ives. She examines Anne’s demise through a more political
avenue by determining what happened “not in the bedroom, but in the corridors
of power” 5. Warnicke, through her study of social history, demonstrates the
intricate networks Anne Boleyn’s father - Thomas Boleyn - established in order
to elevate Anne to a position in which she was capable of seducing King Henry
VIII. She also goes further to explore Anne’s “drive to marry well for her family
and lineage”6, thus indicating that one of the fundamental factors resulting in
Anne’s marriage to King Henry VIII was the defining role of social status in the
Tudor Period. Ives, too, explores Thomas Boleyn’s plans to elevate Anne to be a
fit member of the English Court through providing her with a European
education, and how this “special premium…lies at the heart of Anne Boleyn’s
success”7. However, Ives examines this success in light of Henry’s grandfather
Edward IV’s modelling of the English court on that of Burgundy, which required
the “need for a new breed of courtier”8 such as Anne. Thus, Ives demonstrates
that the decisions of those in power, rather than the gender relations between
male and female, have the ability to shape the context of life in court. Despite the
fact that many in current times may perceive this to be a narrow-minded
approach to history, it seems to reflect the attitudes of the Tudor Period, the
period on which Ives is an expert, and thus cannot be used to discredit his
theories. Although Ives and Warnicke have conflicting perspectives due to their
differing approaches to history, there are other individuals who possess even
more polemical views on the forces that drove Anne Boleyn towards her
marriage with Henry. Historical novelist Philipa Gregory has been criticised by
‘The Guardian’ as portraying Anne as a “scheming trollop”9, and herself has
described Anne as “sexually out of control, ravenous, a she-wolf”10. Such
questionable statements are evidently directly linked to Gregory’s purpose – to
captivate her audience. Historical authors, as Tudor historian G.W. Bernard
states, “risk embedding images that are at best fanciful and at worst downright
false.”11 Gregory extends her writing far beyond the notion suggested by Ives and
Warnicke that Thomas Boleyn positioned Anne to be worthy of the King’s
attention, but she asserts that he and his wife Elizabeth were devoid of affection
for their two daughters, and merely used them as sexual pawns for political gain.
This emotional detachment is clearly demonstrated by Gregory’s inclusion of
Anne’s statement, “We might, either of us, be Queen of England and yet we’ll
always be nothing to our family”12. David Starkey, a historian who has
E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. xiv)
6 R.M.Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. 1989. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge (p.47)
7 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (pg 12)
8 ibid
9 Chrisafis, A. Theives breach Boleyn castle defences. The Guardian. 30 April 2003.
10 The Last Days of Anne Boleyn, television program. BBC Television.
11 G.W. Bernard. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. 2010. Yale University Press:
London (p. ix)
12 P. Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl. 2002. Simon and Schuster: New York (p.
327)
5
dismissively referred to Gregory’s work in ‘The Telegraph’ as “good Mills and
Boon”13, approaches Anne’s motivations for marrying King Henry VIII in a much
more balanced and realistic manner. Having specialised in Tudor history in his
studies at Cambridge, Starkey is not afraid to voice his opinion on the lack of
authority in such unreliable “chick lit.”14 Starkey believes that Anne Boleyn,
although “ambitious for her future”, was not cold or a vindictive schemer, but
simply “a remarkable woman who risked everything…. to get the man, and the
crown, that she wanted”15. His insightful and seemingly impartial comments
made on Anne’s motivations for marrying Henry demonstrate Starkey’s desire to
seek the truth in history. Thus, his work can be utilised in combination with Ives’
to suggest that while Anne may have come to love Henry, she seems to have
initially possessed an ulterior motive in her seeking marriage to him. Although
one can understand that it is likely Anne had such a motive, an extensive range of
factors regarding her life must be further examined to determine her guilt or
innocence.
2. How significant was Anne Boleyn’s involvement in the English
Reformation and did this involvement play a role in her demise?
The question of Anne’s role in the English Reformation is one that sparks various
historical disputes regarding the extent of her involvement and the impact of
such involvement on her demise. In the period when Anne’s daughter Elizabeth
ruled England, Anne was recognised as a “virtual saint” who had given “impetus
and encouragement” 16 to the cause of religious reform. This temporal proximity
to Anne and her daughter’s life raises queries about the reliability the comments
made. Thus, one would perhaps consider the source-based evaluation of Anne’s
role by modern and qualified historians as higher in veracity and lacking bias.
But they would be wrong. The magnitude of partiality displayed by a range of
modern historians indicates the ability of one’s context, especially in regards to
religious belief, to shape their views on the Tudor Period. Joanna Denny, clearly
influenced by her “religious bias”, produced what is referred to by Alison Weir as
an “anti-Catholic”17 biography on Anne. The biography makes a range of
assertions, such as “her views were evangelical, many would later say
Lutheran”18 without proper reference to actual evidence. Thus, it highlights the
ability of religious beliefs to impact on the historical truth. Eric Ives, although
holding the same belief as Denny that Anne was a “key element”19 in the
Reformation, demonstrates the ability of thorough research and proper analysis
Davies, S. David Starkey: it is ‘ludicrous’ to suggest that historical novelists have
authority. The Telegraph. 11 May 2013.
14 ibid.
15 The Wives of Henry VIII, DVD, Channel Four Television Corporation, England.
2001.
16 A. Weir, The Lady in The Tower. 2010. Ballantine Books: New York. (p. 333)
17 ibid (337)
18 J. Denny, Anne Boleyn: A new Life of England’s Tragic Queen. 2007. Da Capo
Press: Cambridge.
19 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p.260)
13
of sources to record such historical perspective in a reliable manner. Ives argues
that Anne implemented reformist beliefs similar to Martin Luther’s in monastic
houses, such as prohibiting the display of “relics or feigned materials”20. Yet, in
stating that “applying confessional labels in the 1520s and 1530s is, in fact,
wholly inappropriate”21, Ives is criticising historians such as Denny who use
these small pieces of evidence to make assertions. He argues that Anne and
Cromwell had intense disagreements regarding the dissolution of monasteries in
England to provide finances for the purpose of updating England’s “antiquated
defences” and “multiplying the fund of royal patronage.”22. Cromwell, fearing the
power of a “hostile Anne with a unique hold over Henry”, thus decided that Anne
“must go.” 23 Warnicke however, takes a different slant to Ives, and, although
acknowledging that Anne’s beliefs had “reformist overtones”24, states this is “not
enough” to prove that Anne worked to “restructure the Church”.25
Inconsistencies arise however, when comparing Warnicke’s theories about the
circumstances driving Anne Boleyn to the throne to her arguments regarding
Anne’s involvement in the Reformation. As previously mentioned in the first
focus question, Warnicke opposes Ives’ suggestion that Anne “married for love”26
and instead argues that she was only motivated to increase her family’s status.
Yet when Warnicke presents the assertion that Anne’s motivations for becoming
“knowledgeable about new books and religious commentaries” was to “please
her intended bridegroom”, she makes comment that Anne, after all, had “fallen in
love with… a theological expert”27. It seems as if Warnicke is using the
justification of “love” in order to argue that Anne showed a devout interest in
religion simply to impress the King, was not involved in actual restructuring of
the Church and thus was not brought down due to the Reformation. This
contradiction in her arguments regarding Anne’s marriage motivations is thus
used to support Warnicke’s alternative theory regarding Anne’s downfall, which
will be explored in the final focus question. Starkey, like Warnicke, argues that
Anne utilised religion to “offer a way out of her own predicament”, however he
acknowledges that Anne “had long been interested in the radical new religious
ideas.” 28 Thus, he is not simply suggesting that Anne played a role in the
Reformation for an ulterior motive, but also because she had a genuine desire to
alter conservative religious ideas. Starkey supports this suggestion by
referencing Anne’s presentation of a “controversial new book” to Henry ibid (264)
ibid (267)
22 ibid (309)
23 ibid (p. 312)
24 R.M.Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. 1989. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge (p. 153)
25 ibid (113)
26 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. xv)
27 R.M.Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. 1989. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge (p.110)
28 The Wives of Henry VIII, DVD, Channel Four Television Corporation, England.
2001.
20
21
William Tyndale’s Obedience of a Christian Man, which argued that authority
over the Church “belonged not to the Pope, but to the King.” 29 This led to Henry
heavily pressuring the clergy to appoint him as “Supreme Head on Earth of the
Church of England”.30 Following this appointment, Henry married Anne Boleyn
and was excommunicated by the Pope. Starkey argues that such controversy
generated significant dislike for Anne within the English community. Due to the
fact that she was reviled as a “heretic”, Anne became “dangerously dependant…
on Henry’s love and support”31 and thus vulnerable when her downfall came.
Historian G.W. Bernard, like Warnicke, uses his portrayal of Anne’s role in the
Reformation to engineer a character assassination, stating that Anne’s giving to
“public and ostentatious” charity was simply a way to “neutralise that poor
reputation”32 and that Anne was merely “following where Henry led.”33 Thus, by
portraying Anne as unlikeable and passive, Bernard slyly aims to align his
audience against her, as an attempt to influence their final verdict of whether she
is guilty or innocent. Like Warnicke, Bernard has altered the conventional
interpretation of Anne’s role in the Reformation simply to support his theory
about her downfall. Therefore, it can be demonstrated that historical opinion
regarding Anne’s role in the Reformation and its impact on her demise fluctuates
depending on a historian’s context and aims.
3. What role did Thomas Cromwell play in instigating Anne Boleyn’s
demise?
Anne’s downfall fuels debate within the historical community, as those with
different understandings of the Tudor Period present contrasting arguments.
Eric Ives, through his political approach to the study of Anne’s downfall, is the
main advocate for the theory that Cromwell “determined to destroy Anne first”34.
Warnicke contests Ives’ suggestion of Cromwell initiating a “coup”35 against
Anne, instead arguing that Henry truly believed Anne was guilty and “I have
never thought that anyone, including T. Cromwell, could manipulate him.”36
Warnicke, in her research of the Tudor Period, wrote an essay on the “physical
abnormalities attributed to Anne” which she believes gave her an understanding
of “how early modern people viewed deformities… as God’s way of punishing
sinners” 37 Such research led her to profess the controversial theory that Anne
“miscarried a defective foetus in 1536.”38 Warnicke argues that due to common
ibid
ibid
31 ibid
32 G.W. Bernard. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. 2010. Yale University Press:
London. (p.109)
33 ibid (p. 115)
34 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. xv)
35 ibid (p.319)
36 R.M.Warnicke. email. 1 June 2014.
37 ibid
38 R.M.Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. 1989. Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge (p.3)
29
30
beliefs that this was an “evil omen”, Anne was accused of engrossing in “illicit
sexual acts”39 and executed. Although this theory may be interesting, there is
little evidence to support it, and thus one questions its credibility. As Ives
rightfully explains, this theory would not merit “a moment’s consideration apart
from a mountain of fantasy that has been built upon it.” Ives, believing Cromwell
initiated Anne’s demise, asks why no one “ever mentioned the deformed foetus”
after having gone to the trouble to “shift the blame”40 for Anne’s miscarriage
from Henry’s sexual impotence to Anne’s supposed adultery. However, even
though Warnicke’s theory raises much debate, it is Gregory’s interpretation of
this theory in her novel that eliminates all historical fact whatsoever. Gregory
states she is “indebted” to Warnicke for her “original and provocative thesis”41
which shaped her novel. Warnicke however rejects this connection to a woman
who describes herself as a being a “feminist all my life”42, professing “I wish that
she had not admitted to using my work.”43 Thus the conflicting opinions between
the two demonstrate the different approaches to writing by historians and
historical novelists. Bernard, like Warnicke and Gregory, also contests the view
that Thomas Cromwell played a role in Anne’s downfall. Criticised as portraying
Anne as an “unfaithful nymphomaniac”44, Bernard claims he has a “hunch” that
“Anne committed adultery with Norris, probably with Smeaton, possibly with
Weston.”45 Such indefinite language raises queries about the reliability of
Bernard’s statements. His partiality can be linked with the influence of temporal
context on historical writings when he claims that although many scholars
criticise his accusations against Anne for committing adultery as “preposterous”,
“those of us living in the shadow of the late Princess Diana might find this less
implausible.”46 Bernard is allowing the concept of presentism to negatively
impact upon his ability to accurately account for the actions of those in the
past.47 In response to this, Warnicke rightfully points out that “social attitudes
change – we cannot judge the past on the basis of our own inclinations.”48 Thus
one must be critical when presented with Bernard’s assumptions of Anne’s guilt,
due to the gross assumptions he makes under the influence of temporal context.
In opposition to Ives’ argument that Thomas Cromwell instigated Anne’s demise,
Warnicke also states that the differing opinions between the two arise from a
ibid (p. 4)
E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. 297)
41 P. Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl. 2002. Simon and Schuster: New York (p 663)
42 Carey, A. The Other Platagenet Girl. The Irish Times. 16th August 2013.
43 Philipa Gregory’s Use of Retha Warnicke’s Anne Boleyn. Thirteenth Annual
ACMRS Conference, Tempe, AZ., 2007
44 Catling, P. Alternative portrait of Anne Boleyn as unfaithful nymphomaniac. Irish
Times. May 24, 2010.
45 G.W. Bernard. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. 2010. Yale University Press:
London (p.192)
46 ibid (p.156)
47 S. Walter-Schmid. Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. History Today. 2012.
http://www.historytoday.com/author/susan-walters-schmid
48 R.M. Warnicke, email. 1 June 2014.
39
40
“generational difference.”49 Through claiming that Ives’ argument is based on
“Old English Theory – prominent when he was in College”50, Warnicke fails to
acknowledge that many other historians of a different generation to Ives share
the same realistic views as him. Weir, born 20 years after Ives in 1951, also
argues that Cromwell participated in “judicial murder”51. Starkey too, born in
1945, has theories that correlate with Ives’ – that Cromwell believed “Anne had
to be gotten rid of”52 Starkey argues that Cromwell planned to turn Anne’s
“famous sex-appeal”53against her. His argument is that Cromwell used evidence
such as a “love sighs” written for Anne by musician Mark Smeaton and Anne
accusing a courtier of “wanting to marry her”54 in order to convince the King that
Anne was guilty of committing adultery and treason. Both Starkey and Ives do
acknowledge that Anne’s miscarriage in 1536 was “a huge psychological blow to
Henry” 55 but they do not go to the extreme of Warnicke in suggesting that the
foetus was malformed, and thus led to her downfall. Ives and Starkey deviate
from the path followed by Bernard, as they do not allow for temporal context to
influence their writings. Instead, the two historians present a balanced argument
that clearly demonstrates Cromwell’s influence on Anne’s demise. Therefore, the
differing approaches to history, along with the influence of context on historians,
has the ability to drastically influence opinions regarding the downfall of Anne
Boleyn and thus shape the ensuing debate.
ibid
ibid
51 The Last Days of Anne Boleyn, television program. BBC Television.
52 The Wives of Henry VIII, DVD, Channel Four Television Corporation, England.
2001.
53 ibid
54 ibid
55 E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd: Oxford (p. 298)
49
50
Bibliography




















A. Weir, The Lady in The Tower. 2010. Ballantine Books: New York.
Author Unknown. Professor Eric Ives. The Telegraph. 2012.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9626434/Professor-EricIves.html (accessed 18th April 2014)
Author unknown. The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the
Court of King Henry VIII. Google Books. 2014. (accessed 13th January
2014)
Catling, P. Alternative portrait of Anne Boleyn as unfaithful nymphomaniac.
Irish Times. May 24, 2010
Chrisafis, A. Thieves breach Boleyn castle defences. The Guardian. 30 April
2003
Davies, S. David Starkey: it is ‘ludicrous’ to suggest that historical novelists
have authority. The Telegraph. 11 May 2013
E. Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’. 2004.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd: Oxford
G.W. Bernard. Anne Boleyn: Fatal Attractions. 2010. Yale University Press:
London
J. Conger. The Fall of Anne Boleyn: A Historiographical Study. 2012.
http://www.csupomona.edu/~zywang/conger300paper.pdf (accessed
22nd February 2014)
J. Denny, Anne Boleyn: A new Life of England’s Tragic Queen. 2007. Da Capo
Press: Cambridge
N. Grueninger. Tudor Library. On the Tudor Trail. 2014.
http://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/book-talk/tudor-library/ (accessed 20th
December 2013)
P. Gregory, The Other Boleyn Girl. 2002. Simon and Schuster: New York
Philipa Gregory’s Use of Retha Warnicke’s Anne Boleyn. Thirteenth Annual
ACMRS Conference, Tempe, AZ., 2007
P. Marshal. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn. Reviews in History. 2005.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/452 (accessed 16th January
2014)
R.M.Warnicke. Personal email to author. 1 June 2014.
R.M.Warnicke, The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn. 1989. Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge
S. Walter-Schmid. Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. History Today. 2012.
http://www.historytoday.com/author/susan-walters-schmid (accessed
7th January 2014)
The Last Days of Anne Boleyn, television program. BBC Television
The Wives of Henry VIII, DVD, Channel Four Television Corporation,
England. 2001.
R. Cust. Eric Ives obituary. 2012.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/30/eric-ives (accessed
18th April 2014)
Analysis of Sources
1. The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn ‘The Most Happy’ by Eric Ives is a wellargued, well-supported biography of Anne that enhanced the quality of the essay.
It demonstrates a consistent reference to evidence and links such evidence to the
theories expressed by Ives, increasing its reliability. Although most historical
studies are influenced by a historian’s context, Ives demonstrates a markedly
impartial approach to his studies, allowing the reader to have confidence that the
information presented is free from bias. The aim of the biography is to factually
recount Anne’s life and death and the audience would most likely be historical
professionals or students. This heightens its credibility as Ives would endeavour
to present a factual account of Anne’s life, so as to not be critically reviewed by
his peers. Although Ives’ biography has sometimes been criticised for his
sympathetic attitude towards Anne, this attitude is shaped by the evidence he
has studied, and thus cannot be used to discredit his theories. Ives’ political
approach to his study of Anne Boleyn directly reflects the attitudes of the Tudor
period, and allows for insightful analysis into the role of Thomas Cromwell in
instigating Anne’s demise - the focus of the third enquiry question. Ives’ true
strength lies in the fact that his arguments are factually supported and highly
reliable.
2.Retha Warnicke’s The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn is useful in demonstrating
how the theories of a historian have the ability to influence the presentation of
evidence. Warnicke’s approach to her study of Anne is of high measure, as she
explores the social and gender relations of the Tudor Court. Yet, the theories on
which the work is predicated raise questions about the reliability of her work.
Warnicke’s argument that Anne miscarried a deformed foetus should not be
criticized due simply to the fact that it is controversial. However, the fact that
Warnicke has no concrete evidence to support her claim is where issues arise
regarding its credibility. Nevertheless, the book contributed immensely to the
essay, through allowing for the examination of historical debate between Ives
and Warnicke. It provided for the exploration of alternative historical
perspectives, thus ensuring the essay was rich and varied in the information it
examined. Warnicke’s work demonstrated inconsistencies between her
arguments regarding Anne’s motivations in marrying Henry and her role in the
Reformation. Although this detracts from the reliability of the source, it is useful
for the purpose of studying how historians attempt to shape the evidence to
adhere to their theory.
3. The Wives of Henry VIII, presented by Starkey, explores a range of balanced
insights to Anne’s life and death that were useful in answering all three focus
questions. Starkey, with his flawless presentation, allows the reader to grasp a
better understanding of Anne that can be applied in every phase of the essay.
The strength that lies in Starkey’s presentation is that he acknowledges other
possible alternatives to his theory before affirming his own views. Such an
analysis of contrasting viewpoints allows for his work to be effectively utilised in
the essay, especially in answering the question regarding Anne’s involvement in
the Reformation. Starkey’s presentation is heighted in reliability due to his onscreen display of the evidence to support his theories. The only aspect one can
query is the purpose of the program. Obviously Starkey, as an eminent historian,
would aim to seek the historical truth in his work. Yet, the fact that the program
would be displayed by television to a wider audience than simply historical
professionals may have inclined Starkey to include slight dramatization in order
to captivate his audience.
Isabella, to put you out of your misery early, this was the top project of the
four and has deservedly scored a mark well into the A range. I simply loved
reading it and just as much enjoyed reading your Process Log. Here it is,
Thursday night approaching midnight and I’ve been going through this since
8.00pm and I’m desperate to get this, the last of my marking, done so I can
return everything tomorrow … whether I finish this review tonight or at
school tomorrow, I don’t know, but it was well worth spending the time
reading all of this. It was terrific. To the details ….
Your Process Log was wonderful, and fun, from start to finish - not
something that was evident in any of the other- yes this ended up being the
last one I marked – inverse alphabetical order being the process I used. I think
all the others decided that for just 10% it was not worth all the time and effort,
and that is a judgement I can understand. Your decision to take it seriously
means you get an A for the Process Log as well. I hope you feel all the time
and effort was worthwhile. You obviously immersed yourself in this work,
something that became clear in your presentation at the restaurant on the day
the projects were handed up. You displayed a solid understanding of the key
issues and characters and a clear recognition of the views of the historians
you had included and, to a remarkable extent, an understanding of their
contexts. Above all, you manifested a great enthusiasm for all you had
researched. Following your talk at the restaurant was a challenge as the ideas
simply gushed out and flooded one upon the other – but I still enjoyed it
immensely. The quality of the reflective comments in the Process Log was
excellent and this quality that was maintained throughout the Process Log,
even in those last frantic weeks and days when some others were devoting all
their energy to the project itself. The best reflective comments were, of course,
the ones where you were reflecting on what you had read. There were other
times when you were reflecting on the tasks you had to perform and your
personal feelings, including your aggravation at the MacKillop/SJH network.
These were more entertaining than enlightening. The fact that you found the
time to do such entries when you were obviously stressed just getting the
Project finished is admirable. It struck me that you seemed to develop
something like the obsession to record the details that I did in my Tour Diary.
You did a terrific job recording the process you undertook as well as
intelligently, and on many occasions comically, reflecting on the work you
had done. I simply loved reading it, which probably explains why it took me
longer to read than the essay. It earned the high mark it achieved.
The Project itself also well deserves a mark in the A range, though there were
a few issues that might have been addressed a little differently. You have
done your research most effectively and it has been interesting to track the
progress of your thought through the Process Log. And there was plenty to
track! The intelligence and determination you brought to the research task
saw you safely through the frustrating moments, and there seem to have been
a number of these moments. I think you were fortunate to have a wise friend
in Julia. Her assistance I am sure was valuable. How much she helped shape
the remarkably improved quality of expression, I do not know, but the
writing was the best you have produced … easily. I cannot imagine it was all
Julia so that speaks very well of the progress you have made in this regard
since the Proposal and I’m sure it will be reflected in the essays you are yet to
write. The number of technical weaknesses was vanishingly small. I’m sure
you can take a great deal of the credit yourself, but I’m equally sure your
proofreader, or proofreaders if you used more than Julia, deserve recognition
(and I’m suggesting something tangible, probably in a purple wrapper!) The
quality of the prose was impressive and the time you had taken to choose and
weigh your phrases obviously paid off. Your Process Log indicated you felt
you had done your very best. You had. Presentation was also first rate with
the material well organised and very easy to read.
The focus questions were very well crafted. The integration of contextual
factors while exploring the three key questions was strong, particularly in the
second section, though this was done at some cost to you clearly articulating a
position of your own. Perhaps if you had not been constrained by the word
limit things may have been different. I am sure you would have loved to
develop all of these sections in much greater depth but you did manage to
condense everything into something close to the word limit without
descending to meaningless generalisation.
Your approach of exploring the two sides in an integrated fashion in each of
the three sections was certainly effective. It calls for real skill and balance but
you carried it off well. At times your judgements were a little too absolute, at
least in your expression of those judgements. We generally will want to use
more qualified and restrained phrases rather than absolute phrases. We aim
to argue in “greyland” as I call it. Getting too black and white can put us in
positions in which it is harder to defend our absolute stance.
Your referencing was sound with footnotes providing the reader with the
necessary information to check your sources. I wanted to pop in a few
comments on some source references but Word does not allow the comments
in the footnotes section. I don’t know why – it’s probably me not knowing
how to do it but no matter.
The synopsis was also strong with a clear explanation of the development of
the focus questions and an outline of the key issues but what was lacking was
a clear expression of your view on the key issues. Something beginning with
“this essay will seek to argue that …” would have been worthwhile. That’s
what a synopsis does … tells the reader what is about to be argued.
Your bibliography was strong and the appraisal of the three sources was well
directed to the use you made of them. It was great to see the balance between
criticism and praise.
Overall, I much enjoyed reading this and it well deserves the A range mark it
has earned. Now it is time to devote all our energies to the HSC essays. With
the skills you have demonstrated here, I’m sure you can do just as well there.
Good luck.
Mark for Process Log:
9/10
Mark for Essay and Bibliography:
54/60
PS – A message to everyone - Now that I’ve finished marking all
four essays I can tell you that you ranked first. I’ll let everyone
know their own rank so you do not have to undertake the fraught
exercise of ringing others and asking for their mark to discover
where you ranked. If you want to know where the others ranked,
I’m afraid you will have to ring them as it is not for me to inform
you of any rank other than your own. Now you can put your
Project out of your mind and focus on the next hurdle, the Trial
Exams, knowing that you’ll never have to do any more work on
the Project … and that’s a liberation. Enjoy.