Using the sources and your own knowledge, evaluate the political impact of Richard I’s absence in England.

Apply the markbands that provide the “best fit” to the responses given by candidates and award credit wherever it is possible to do so. The following material is an indication of what candidates may elect to write about in their responses. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive and no set answer is required. While it is expected that there will be coverage of at least two of the sources, candidates are not required to refer to all four sources in their responses.

Indicative content

Source B Richard I is pictured as the leading political authority, imposing his power on his brother John, who was finally subject to his command. Eleanor of Aquitaine, mother of Richard I and John, was important in maintaining their relationship.

Source C During Richard I’s absence, John disturbed the provinces of England with the help of troops of criminals, since the nobles of the kingdom opposed him. However, John’s surrender of Windsor Castle suggests a reduction in political turmoil.

Own knowledge Candidates may consider that Richard I’s main interest was leading the crusade, rather than planning the future of the English monarchy. This had an impact on the royal treasury as well as in the political arena since the king sold sheriffdoms, rights and lands to gather resources for the enterprise in the Middle East. Candidates may also mention the agreement between Richard I and Henry VI for his release, which encompassed the formal surrender of his kingdom to Henry VI, taking it back as a fief. Candidates may discuss Richard I’s return to England and the political risks the kingdom underwent that forced Richard I to celebrate a second coronation in order to confirm his authority. Soon after, Richard I left for Normandy and never returned, leaving England under the rule of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Hubert Walter. Candidates may also offer information on John, who was banished and deprived of all his lands but later reconciled to Richard I, recovering some of his domains.

Many candidates provided a focused and developed response to the final question. It was pleasing to find that most candidates demonstrated a sound understanding of the question and attempted to refer to source content in their analysis. There were some excellent essay-style responses which, for example, discussed the reasons for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, discussed the view that Ibrahim Rugova's methods contributed to the origins of the war in Kosovo or evaluated the significance of Nelson Mandela to the struggle against apartheid up to 1964. However, as noted above, some responses to the final question were too brief or clearly incomplete apparently due to the candidate not reserving sufficient time for the final question. Although well informed, others were excessively descriptive in nature, requiring the examiner to infer the relevance of such information to the set question. Most candidates referred to at least one source, but many did not include relevant knowledge. A sizeable minority tended to list the content of each source with a general point addressing the question at the end. On the other hand, there were candidates who did not refer to the sources at all in their response.

Candidates should be reminded that for the top markband responses must maintain focus on the set question and clearly reference and use the sources as evidence to support the analysis. In addition, for the final question there must be synthesis of accurate and relevant own knowledge.