GCSE · History · AQA · Spec 8145

Elizabethan Golden Age

Textbooks love calling Elizabeth's reign a 'Golden Age'. Sounds lovely. But golden for whom? Weigh the evidence and decide for yourself.

Weigh it up

Golden for whom?

The claim

Elizabeth I's reign was a Golden Age.

Place each piece of evidence to load the balance. Mark the strong ones — they count double.

England's economy grew during Elizabeth's reign, which made the country richer.
Evidence 1: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
Theatre was established as a form of entertainment, and Shakespeare is still regarded as one of the greatest playwrights and poets ever.
Evidence 2: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
Elizabeth calmed religious tensions in England, while religious wars ran rife across much of the rest of Europe.
Evidence 3: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
In 1588 the English Navy defeated Catholic Spain, the mightiest force in Europe at the time, and Drake had earlier brought home fabulous amounts of wealth.
Evidence 4: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
Only the gentry and the rich, a relatively small minority of the English people, really benefited from the growth of the economy.
Evidence 5: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
Throughout the Tudor period the lives of ordinary people were generally hard, and poverty was an increasingly common problem during Elizabeth's reign.
Evidence 6: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
Thousands of the sailors who defeated the Armada died of disease brought on by poor conditions and lack of food, and many survivors were forgotten by Elizabeth's government and forced into vagrancy and begging.
Evidence 7: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence
The very first efforts to colonise North America promised new wealth and opportunity, but did not work out very well during Elizabeth's reign.
Evidence 8: does it support or challenge the claim?SupportsChallenges
Strong evidence

Who got what?

For each feature, tick who it reached: the gentry and the rich, the poor, or both. Watch the diagram fill as you go.

A Reached the gentry and the rich
B Reached the poor

Economic growth
London theatre
Grammar schools and universities
The 1601 Poor Law

Check your gut

Which idea is closest to yours?

Two students are arguing about Elizabeth's reign, and you're the tie-break.

Which of these is closest to what you think right now?

'Golden Age' is an interpretation, so whether the reign earns it depends on whose lives you look at.If the country got richer and won famous victories, the reign has to be golden.The poor had a hard time by today's standards, so the reign can't have been golden.'Golden Age' is just a fact about Elizabeth's reign, so there's nothing to weigh up.

How sure are you?

I'm sureI think soI'm guessing

'Golden Age' is an interpretation, so whether the reign earns it depends on whose lives you look at.

This matches the evidence

Yes. It is the generally accepted interpretation, but an interpretation can be weighed. Social historians add a test: ordinary people must have benefited too.

If the country got richer and won famous victories, the reign has to be golden.

This is a common misconception

Tempting, because growth and victories are easy to see. But they measure the country, not the people in it. For social historians, no period can accurately be called a golden age unless ordinary people, the vast majority, also benefited.

The poor had a hard time by today's standards, so the reign can't have been golden.

This is a common misconception

Careful. That judges the past by today's standards, and social historians should judge past societies by their own. You can still end up disagreeing with the label, but the reason has to come from how things looked in the period itself.

'Golden Age' is just a fact about Elizabeth's reign, so there's nothing to weigh up.

This is a common misconception

It is the generally accepted interpretation, a way of reading the reign rather than a date you can look up. That's why historians can look at the same period, and the same poor people, and disagree.

Before you accept 'golden', ask: golden for whom, judged by the standards of the time?

Looking after the poor

For most of Elizabeth's reignvsThe 1601 Poor Law

Same century, two different answers to 'whose job is it?'

Focus

Who was responsible?

For most of Elizabeth's reign

The church or, to a smaller extent, the wealthy through charity. It was not considered the government's job.

The 1601 Poor Law

This attitude began to change towards the end of Elizabeth's reign.

The insight

The big shift is in whose job it is seen to be. Judge the earlier period by its own attitudes, not ours.

Who was helped?

For most of Elizabeth's reign

The poor, through the church or through charity.

The 1601 Poor Law

The impotent poor (people unable to work, such as the sick and the elderly) were helped, and the able-bodied poor were given jobs.

When?

For most of Elizabeth's reign

The Tudor period and most of Elizabeth's reign.

The 1601 Poor Law

Only in 1601, just two years before Elizabeth died in 1603.

Were the Elizabethan poor forgotten?

Same question, two historians, two answers. Flip between them.

Mortimer: forgotten

Sharpe: not forgotten

Tap a claim from either side to see the evidence behind it.

Have a go

Your turn to argue

Was there a golden age for the poor in Elizabethan England? Write a short, reasoned answer. [4 marks]

Your answer

0 words · your answer stays on this page and is not sent anywhere.

The mark scheme

Uses evidence that suggests no golden age for the poor, such as poverty becoming an increasingly common problem, or the Armada sailors being forgotten and left begging. (1 mark)
Uses evidence that the poor were helped, such as the 1601 Poor Law helping the impotent poor and giving the able-bodied poor jobs. (1 mark)
Brings in a historian's view: Mortimer (the poor were forgotten and marginalised) or Sharpe (the poor were not forgotten, with the Poor Law as his evidence). (1 mark)
Reaches a judgement that follows from the evidence used, for example by noting that the Poor Law came only two years before Elizabeth died. (1 mark)

Model answer

It depends which pieces you lean on. Poverty was an increasingly common problem under Elizabeth, and many of the sailors who beat the Armada were forgotten and ended up begging. That fits Ian Mortimer's view that the poor were forgotten and marginalised. On the other side, the 1601 Poor Law helped the sick and elderly and gave the able-bodied poor jobs, and James Sharpe uses it to argue the poor were not forgotten. But it came only two years before Elizabeth died, so I judge that there was only a limited golden age for the poor.

A good answer uses evidence on both sides, names a historian, and then commits to a judgement the evidence supports.

WHAT YOU'VE LEARNED

A quick recap of today's lesson.

Growth, theatre and victory are real. So is the evidence about the poor.

What you need to know

'Golden Age' is the generally accepted interpretation of Elizabeth's reign: a time of great peace, prosperity and happiness.
Have a goYour mate Jas says, 'Golden Age is just a fact about Elizabeth, like the date of a battle.' Fact or interpretation? What do you tell Jas?
It's an interpretation. It's the generally accepted one, but still a way of reading the reign.
A date can be checked and settled. 'Golden' is a judgement about the whole reign, so it can be weighed and challenged.
England's economy grew, which made the country richer.
Theatre was established, and Shakespeare is still regarded as one of the greatest ever. Grammar schools were built and the universities expanded.
Elizabeth calmed religious tensions, while religious wars raged across much of the rest of Europe.
England grew as a naval power: it defeated Catholic Spain in 1588, and Drake brought home fabulous wealth.
Colonising North America began and promised wealth, but it did not work out very well in her reign.
Have a goOf the features so far, which one promised something that hadn't paid off by the end of Elizabeth's reign?
The first efforts to colonise North America.
It promised new wealth and opportunity, but it did not work out very well in her reign, so even the case for the label has a weak spot.
The case against: only the gentry and the rich, a small minority, really benefited from the economic growth.
For social historians, no period is golden unless ordinary people, the vast majority, benefited too.
Have a goImagine a boom makes the whole country richer, but only the rich notice. Golden age or not, by the social historians' test?
Not golden. The test asks whether ordinary people, the vast majority, benefited too.
The test asks who gained, not how rich the country became, so growth on its own doesn't pass it.
Ordinary lives were generally hard, poverty was growing, and thousands of Armada sailors died of disease or were forgotten and left begging.
Mortimer says the poor were forgotten, so no golden age for them. Sharpe says they weren't, citing the Poor Law.

The big picture

'Golden Age' is the generally accepted interpretation of Elizabeth I's reign, but it is an interpretation, not a fact. The reign brought growth, theatre, education, religious calm and naval success, yet the benefits were not shared equally. Social historians only call a period golden if ordinary people benefited too, and Ian Mortimer and James Sharpe disagree about whether the poor were forgotten.

Key points

1'Golden Age' is the generally accepted interpretation of Elizabeth's reign. It is an interpretation, not a proven fact.

2Features people point to: a richer economy, theatre, education, religious calm, naval success and the first steps towards colonising North America.

3The benefits were not shared equally: only the gentry and the rich really benefited from the economic growth.

4Social historians say no period is golden unless ordinary people also benefited, and they judge past societies by their own standards.

5The 1601 Poor Law helped the poor, but it came only two years before Elizabeth died.

6Ian Mortimer says the poor were forgotten. James Sharpe says they were not, using the Poor Law as his evidence.

.we-_R_18slubsnpfiv5ubrb_ [data-we-step]{display:flex !important}.we-_R_18slubsnpfiv5ubrb_ [data-we-solution]{display:block !important}.we-_R_18slubsnpfiv5ubrb_ [data-we-reveal]{display:none !important}

Worked example

Problem

A student writes: 'Elizabeth's reign was a Golden Age because England's economy grew and she brought in the Poor Law.' Turn that into a judgement that weighs both sides.

⚠ Watch out

Writing that the poor got nothing, or that everyone benefited. London theatre was open to the poor, at least some poor children were educated, and the Poor Law helped, but only from 1601. Use 'mainly' and 'not shared equally', not 'never' or 'all'.

🧠

Memory hook

Golden for whom? Ask it of every feature: the country, the gentry, or ordinary people?

✓

Check yourself

Without scrolling up: give one feature that supports the Golden Age claim and one that challenges it, then finish the sentence 'For social historians, a period is only golden if...'.

Flashcards

(14)

What does 'Golden Age' mean when people describe Elizabeth's reign?

The generally accepted interpretation: a time of great peace, prosperity and happiness.

Is 'Golden Age' a fact or an interpretation?

An interpretation. Whether the reign earns it depends on whose lives you weigh.

What happened to England's economy under Elizabeth, and who really gained?

It grew, making the country richer, but the argument is that only the gentry and the rich, a small minority, really benefited.

How far did theatre reach in Elizabethan London?

Theatre was available for all citizens in London, including the poor. Shakespeare is still regarded as one of the greatest playwrights and poets ever.

Who benefited from the growth in education?

Mainly the children of the gentry, although at least some poor children did receive an education.

How did England's religious situation compare with the rest of Europe?

Elizabeth calmed religious tensions, while religious wars were running rife across much of the continent.

Name two signs of England's growing naval power.

The 1588 defeat of Catholic Spain, and Drake bringing home fabulous amounts of wealth.

How did early colonisation of North America turn out?

It promised new wealth and opportunity, but did not work out very well during Elizabeth's reign.

What is the social historians' test for a golden age?

No period can accurately be called golden unless ordinary people, the vast majority, also benefited.

How should social historians judge past societies?

By their own standards, not by the standards we hold today.

What happened to many of the sailors who beat the Armada?

Thousands died of disease from poor conditions and lack of food, and many survivors were forgotten and forced into vagrancy and begging.

What did the 1601 Poor Law do, and why is its date a problem for the label?

It helped the impotent poor and gave the able-bodied poor jobs, but it came only two years before Elizabeth died in 1603.

Before the Poor Law, whose job was it to look after the poor?

The church's or, to a smaller extent, the wealthy's through charity, not the government's.

How do Mortimer and Sharpe differ on the Elizabethan poor?

Mortimer: forgotten and marginalised, so no golden age for them. Sharpe: not forgotten, and the Poor Law is his evidence.

Tap any card to flip it, or use Study as deck to go through them one at a time. In the full lesson these run as a spaced-repetition deck — you rate each card Hard, Good or Easy and the tricky ones keep coming back until they stick.

Learning with Lightbulb is opening soon

You can use this lesson now. Join the waitlist and we'll let you know when the full Lightbulb experience is ready.

Keep me posted

Golden for whom?

Which idea is closest to yours?

Your turn to argue

More AQA GCSE History topics