Give one example of a job or role typically carried out by Indian migrants who came to Britain in
the period 1600–1750.
[1]
Identify one reason why Irish migrants came to Britain between 1750 and 1900.
[1]
Identify one way the British government attempted to restrict migration to Britain in the 1960s or
early 1970s.
[1]
Write a clear and organised summary that analyses attitudes towards migrants in the medieval period (c.1250–1500).
Support your summary with examples.
[9]
Why have migrants moved to Britain since 1980?
Explain your answer.
[10]
4* ‘European migrants were welcomed and accepted in Britain during the early modern period (1500–1750).’
How far do you agree?
Give reasons for your answer.
[18]
5* ‘Between 1750 and 1980, migrants to Britain had positive experiences.’
How far do you agree?
Give reasons for your answer.
[18]
In Interpretation A, the podcaster gives us a negative impression of the role of knights in Norman culture.
Identify and explain one way in which he does this.
Interpretation A
An extract from ‘The British History Podcast’ by Jamie Jeffers. The podcast was made recently.
Before 1066, in Anglo-Saxon England, the sons of noblemen were expected to be educated and literate. They took an interest in culture and the arts. They were expected to take an interest in the law and in international events.
Anglo-Saxon England was sheltered from the culture of knights. This culture was at the centre of Norman society and mainly focused on horsemanship and war. Culturally, this was a disaster. A boy who trained as a Norman knight had no book learning. After fifteen or twenty years of education he would know how to do only two things: hunt and fight. He had no other useful skills, and looked down upon those who did.
Craftsmanship, education and the arts did not matter to Norman knights. Their self-worth and identity rested entirely on their ability to hand out violence. The culture of knights was brutish and barbaric. It created a flood of illiterate, uncultured young men who were desperate for an opportunity to be violent.
[3]
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 Normandy before 1066.
[5]
Interpretations B and C both focus on how William the Conqueror dealt with his opponents.
How far do they differ and what might explain any differences?
Interpretation B
An extract from a recent TV documentary called ‘Rebellion in the North’. It was part of a series of programmes which celebrated the rebels who challenged the treatment of the North of England across different periods of history.
By late 1069, the North of England was alive with rebellion, while other revolts raged in the west and southwest. The Northerners were sending a clear message to William: they were ready to do anything to defend their rights.
William was enraged. His response was swift. He decided to teach the North a lesson by striking terror into the hearts of the people. His actions have been considered an act of genocide.
He gave his soldiers permission to roam free and do their worst. His soldiers burned houses and destroyed farm animals, leaving nothing behind. Women, children, men, the elderly, and babies were all subject to the Norman sword. It was a truly terrible time to live in the North of England.
By April 1070, thanks to William’s efficient, military machine, the North lay in ruins, the people starving.
Genocide means the deliberate murder of a specific group of people.
Interpretation C
An extract from a biography of William the Conqueror by historian Marc Morris, published in 2016. This extract is taken from the concluding chapter which looked back over the rest of the book.
William has been seen by some as a peace-loving ruler, and by others as an oppressive ruler. The truth lies somewhere between the two.
Whilst harrying was standard practice in medieval warfare, the scale of the destruction brought about by the Harrying of the North had such terrible consequences that even writers at the time thought it went too far. Nevertheless, despite their views on the Harrying of the North, not all Anglo-Saxon writers judged William’s rule to be cruel overall.
Of course, by present standards, some of the punishments William dished out were savage – his mutilation and blinding of some Saxon rebels, for example, would today be regarded as unacceptable. However, the eleventh century was a cruel time. In Anglo-Saxon England, for example, disobedient slaves were stoned or burned to death. Therefore, we cannot be sure whether all of William’s behaviour was regarded as unusually cruel in his own day.
[12]
8* The history website ‘BBC Bitesize’ argues that Harold Godwinson had the ‘strongest claim’ to the English throne after Edward the Confessor’s death in January 1066.
How far do you agree with this view?
Give reasons for your answer.
[20]
9* In describing early Norman castles as ‘rather weak and primitive’, the website ‘www.worldhistory.biz’ suggests that they were not very effective.
How far do you agree with this view of Norman castles in England between 1066 and 1087?
Give reasons for your answer.
[20]
The paper as printed
Spotted a mistake on this page?Report a problem