Hello and welcome to today's history lesson.

My name is Mr. Merritt, and I'll be guiding you through today's lesson.

So let's get started.

Today's history lesson is gonna be answering the question, was there a Golden Age for the poor in Elizabethan England? And by the end of today's lesson, we'll be able to explain the extent to which the reign of Elizabeth I was a Golden Age for the poor.

In order to do that, we need to use a key term, and our key term for today is social historian.

And a social historian is an historian who is interested in studying the lives of ordinary people.

Today's lesson will consist of three separate learning cycles, and our first learning cycle is the Golden Age of Elizabeth I.

So let's get going.

So the generally accepted historical interpretation of Elizabeth I's reign is that it was a Golden Age.

And just to reiterate, a Golden Age is a time of great peace, prosperity, and happiness.

So many historians feel that Elizabeth's reign ticks all three of those boxes.

And as evidenced during the Elizabethan periods, England's economy grew, which made the country richer.

Theatre as a form of entertainment was also established.

And Shakespeare is a really, really good example of a great practitioner of the arts.

He was a playwright and a poet who is still regarded as one of the greatest ever in that particular field.

During the Elizabethan period, grammar schools were also built and the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were expanded as more of the population gained access to all the benefits of education.

During her reign, Elizabeth also managed to calm religious tensions in England.

And this stands in stark contrast to what was going on in much of the rest of Europe at this point in time where religious wars were running rife across the continent and thousands of people were plunged into warfare and starvation and inevitable death as well.

Now, if England had been plunged into the religious conflicts that plagued that much of the rest of Europe at this point in time, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation about whether her reign could be considered a Golden Age or not.

It absolutely would not be.

England also grew as a naval power, and in 1588, the English Navy defeated the mightiest force in Europe at the time, which was Catholic Spain.

And prior to that, Sir Francis Drake, who's just appeared on the screen now, became only the second man to circumnavigate the globe.

And he brought home fabulous amounts of wealth as well as inevitable glory as well.

Now this period also saw the very beginnings of England's efforts to colonise what Elizabethans thought of as the New World, namely North America, which promised new wealth and opportunity for England.

It didn't particularly work out very well during Elizabeth's reign, but it was the start of something which snowballed and became an incredible opportunity for many people.

Let's go through a quick check for understanding now.

Which famous Elizabethan was only the second man to circumnavigate the globe? Was it Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, or William Shakespeare? Make a choice now.

All right, if you chose A, Sir Francis Drake, then congratulations, that is correct.

Let's have another check for understanding then.

I would like you to choose two features of the Elizabethan period that can be used as evidence of it being a Golden Age.

So was it warfare with Spain? Was it development of education? Was it the growth of theatre as a form of entertainment, or was it the increase in popularity of blood sports? So choose two of the options on the screen now.

All right then, if you chose B and C, then very well done.

These are the correct answers.

Right, let's go for our first task for today then.

It is a two-parter.

So the first thing I'd like to do is put the evidence for an Elizabethan Golden Age into an order of significance.

What that means is that the strongest evidence that Elizabeth's reign should be considered a Golden Age goes towards the top, and then the second most important or second strongest piece of evidence goes second, and so on, all the way down to what you consider to be the weakest evidence right down there at the bottom.

Now, it is important to note that there isn't a right or a wrong answer to this at all.

So if you've got a very different answer to other people, it genuinely doesn't matter.

The key aspect of this task is part two of this task, which is your explanation for why you've chosen that order.

So all I'd like you to do though, for that part of the task is to explain your strongest and your weakest pieces of evidence.

So why have you put that topic of evidence at the top? Why have you put that bottom of evidence at the bottom? That's the key aspect to this task.

So pause the video now while you complete that, and I'll see you in just a moment.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on okay with that task.

So on the screen in front of you, I've created an order.

And again, if my order is completely different to yours, genuinely doesn't matter.

You can't be wrong as long as you've explained your reasoning.

So I said that the strongest of evidence to say that Elizabeth's reign should be considered a Golden Age was the rise of theatre.

I then think it was the growth of education followed by the calming of religious tension.

And now done towards the weaker pieces of evidence, I think that Drake's circumnavigation wasn't overly strong, and in my opinion, the weakest of evidence was the growth of the economy.

And again, if you've got something different to me, it is absolutely fine.

You cannot be wrong here.

Now, let's get to the important aspects of this particular task, which is your explanation.

So here I've got my explanation for why I've chosen my strongest and my weakest bits of evidence.

So I said the rise of theatre is the strongest evidence that the Elizabethan era was a Golden Age because we still regularly attend the theatre today, and it is considered an important part of the arts.

Additionally, Shakespeare is still considered to be a genius.

The growth of the economy is the weakest evidence of an Elizabethan Golden Age, because this is only a good thing if the money that was gained was shared equally.

So the way that I've organised my evidence, for my strongest part, I said that the scale of the impacts is the key thing here.

And in this case, I'm looking at the kind of how long that impact is.

So from my aspect, I think that 400 years of impact means that it is a really key bit of evidence.

Theatre started during the Elizabethan era, it's still going strong today, so therefore it's a really key bit of evidence.

Likewise, the growth of the economy asset was very weak because the scale of the impact was relatively minimal.

In my opinion, it was only really the gentry and the rich who was a relatively small minority of the English people, actually really benefited from the growth of the economy.

And the vast majority of the population, the poor people, received very little benefit from that at all.

So in my opinion, that's why it was the weakest bit of evidence to say that Elizabeth's reign was a Golden Age.

Again, if you've got a very different answer to me, it is absolutely fine.

You cannot be wrong as long as you've explained your answer.

So hopefully that's what you've done too.

Let's move on now then to our second learning cycle for today, which is, was it a Golden Age for the poor? Now, when people think about the past, the tendency is to look at the big events and the big personalities in order to reach an understanding of what life was like at that time.

And what I mean by that is kind of what key wars were taking place at this point in time, or what major discoveries were being discovered, or who was the king or the queen at that point in time or what particular personality was having a real impact on society.

And those aspects of history, they are important.

They do give a really good understanding of what happened in the past at certain times.

And certainly for historians, they're really useful, if anything, just for dating as well.

For instance, we talk about the Elizabethan period because Elizabeth was the monarch at that point in time.

So it is a really easy way for historians to reference different aspects of time.

However, big events, they don't affect all people equally.

And most people would never have interacted with the big personalities of their age.

And a good example of that would be Elizabeth.

The vast majority of the population would never have even seen Elizabeth, let alone have had any sort of interaction with her.

The job of a social historian is to look at the lives of ordinary people in history, the people that make up the vast majority of the population.

And for social historians, no period can accurately be considered a Golden Age unless ordinary people also benefited during it.

Now, any Golden Age benefits for the poor can be described as mixed.

At best, it can be described as mixed.

Throughout the Tudor period, the lives of ordinary people were generally hard and miserable, and that's not really any different to the hundreds of years preceding that as well.

So as an example, poverty was an increasingly common problem during the Elizabeth's reign.

The English sailors who defeated the Spanish armada is a great example of one of the big events of this time period.

I mean, they were, well, they should and were considered heroes.

They definitely helped to prevent a Catholic invasion of England.

But they themselves as individuals actually suffered greatly for it.

Thousands died of disease that was brought on by poor conditions and lack of food.

And a large number was simply forgotten by Elizabeth's government and forced into a life of vagrancy and begging.

And this is an aspect of history that doesn't really ever get spoken about to a great extent.

After the threat that Spanish armada was over, those sailors that defeated the Spanish ships, they were effectively forgotten about to a great extent, which is a genuine travesty.

Now many people have been inspired by Drake's circumnavigation to begin a life at sea.

People wanted to become sailors because of what Drake and his crew had accomplished.

And although it was a dangerous occupation, it could also bring great personal wealth as well as helping to establish England as a naval power.

Every single person on board Drake's ships that survived the journey was rich as a result.

Anything that Drake and his crew captured was divvied out that each crew member got a portion of the plunders of war.

So anything that they took from Spanish ships was shared out amongst the crew.

Not equally, not by any stretch of imagination was it shared out equally, but that doesn't really matter.

What matters is that you could potentially, just like Drake and his crew did, come home with huge amounts of wealth that you'd have very little chance of ever achieving if you'd stayed home in England.

To move on, in London, theatre was available for all citizens, including the poor.

Hadn't really reached out to the rest of the country during the Elizabethan period, but it did so soon afterwards.

The tolerance that Elizabeth had in regards to religion in comparison to other monarchs of the time also helped to stabilise the country and prevent unrest.

And that absolutely did help the poor.

And the reason being is that during any period of unrest or warfare, generally speaking, it's the poor that suffered the most.

And there's also evidence that suggests that although the growth in education mainly benefited the children of the gentry, those that already had some money and had the desire to try and provide a better world for their children, there were also at least some poor children who did receive an education.

We do have evidence of people who were considered to be able-bodied poor, whose children were also gaining an education as well.

It wasn't necessarily common, but it did happen.

Now, the 1601 Poor Law went a long way in addressing the increasing number of people living in poverty during the Elizabethan era.

It was sympathetic to those who were unable to work such as the sick and the elderly.

Those classes, the impotent poor, whilst also helping the unemployed who wanted to find work.

The able-bodied poor were given jobs, and this prevented many people from having to beg.

However, it was only enacted in 1601, which was just two years before Elizabeth died.

Elizabeth died in 1603.

So to say that the poor were looked after and taken care of throughout Elizabeth's 45 year reign is just not true.

It was just the last two years that the poor, the Elizabethan Poor Law, the Poor Relief Act came into being.

Now let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So true or false, a social historian looks at the impacts of big events and personalities such as wars and monarchy on history.

So is that true or false? Okay, if you chose false, then congratulations.

Very well done.

But let's justify that answer.

Now, why is it false? Is it false because a social historian studies the lives of ordinary people in history? Or is it false because a social historian studies development of communications and technology? Okay, if you chose A, then congratulations.

That is indeed correct.

Let's go for another check for understanding now.

So what was an increasingly common problem during the Elizabethan period? Was it civil war, invasion or poverty? Okay, if you chose C, poverty, then very well done.

That is indeed the correct answer.

Right, let's go for our next task.

And once again, it is a two-parter, this particular task.

So what I'd like you to do is I'd like you to think about the features that made Elizabeth's reign a Golden Age.

And I want you to think to the extent to which they actually affected poor people.

And the scoring I might like you to do is good to go from -1, 0, to 1.

So if you give it a -1, it means that it had a negative impact on poor people.

If you give it a zero, it had no impact or a severely limited impact on poor people.

And if you give it a plus one, it means that it had a positive impact on people.

So make a choice now with those different features.

And the features are the growth of the economy, the growth of education, the rise of theatre, the calming of religious tension, and Drake's circumnavigation of the globe.

There's other features we could have chosen as well, but we'll focus in on those five.

Now it's all well and good whatever you choose.

You cannot be wrong once again with this particular task, because part two is the really key aspect of this task here now, which is that once again, I'd like you to explain the reason for your scoring.

So if you've got a different scoring system to other people, it doesn't matter.

It is generally absolutely fine, because the key thing is that you're able to justify why you've chosen that scoring.

So part two, I want you to explain why you've chosen your scoring for each of those different factors.

Pause the video while you're doing this, and I'll see you once you're finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task here.

So you can see I've got the table on the screen in front of you and I've done my scoring.

And again, if it's very different to yours, it's absolutely fine.

It genuinely doesn't matter if you've got a different scoring system to me.

So I said that the growth of the economy I said was positive.

I said the growth of education was neutral.

I said the rise of theatre and the calming of religious tensions were both positive.

And I said that Drake's circumnavigation was neutral.

But let's go into the key aspect of this task now, which is why have I chosen that? So let me explain my reasoning to you.

So I said that the growth of the economy was positive, because it meant more opportunities for some poor people.

Now, not all poor people certainly, but I think there there've been a greater number of poor people that would've suffered if there hadn't been this growth of the economy as well, which is why therefore I've said there was a positive impact.

For the growth of education, I've given it a neutral, 'cause, although I have already stated that there were some poor people, some poor children who did receive an education, there were severely limited numbers.

So although I've given it a neutral, it's shying more towards positive.

But there's just not enough poor children receiving education for me to consider it to be a positive impact.

For the rise of theatre, I said that was positive, 'cause poor people could afford to see plays.

There's a qualifier there in that it is only poor Londoners who got to see these plays at this point in time.

I said the calming of religious tensions was positive because poor people suffered the most in any conflict.

So the fact that there was very, very little tension in regards to religion in England, certainly in comparison to the rest of Europe at this point in time, I said was a genuinely positive aspect.

And Drake's circumnavigation, I've rated that as neutral, 'cause I said that although that poor people didn't directly benefit from Drake's circumnavigation of the globe, it also didn't really make their lives any worse.

It didn't have any obvious impact initially.

Certainly there would've been some poor people who'd been inspired to go and be a sailor after this.

But again, it didn't have a direct impact on the poor at that particular point in time.

So if you've got very different explanations to me, again, that's absolutely fine.

It genuinely doesn't matter if your answers are different to mine.

What matters is that you've got an opinion, and you're able to explain it.

So hopefully that's what you've got on your page as well.

Right, let's go for our third and final learning cycle for today, which is social historians' views.

So social historians have a mixed opinion regarding whether the Elizabethan period can be called a Golden Age when considering the lives of ordinary people at the time.

Although there's little doubt that there were advancements during this period, which were extraordinary, and they are genuinely worthy of recognition, the impact that these advancements had on poor people is limited as hopefully the previous task will be able to demonstrate there.

The Elizabethans were also living in an era when it was not considered the job of the government to look after the poor.

Previously it'd been considered the job of the church to look after the poor or to some smaller extent, the job of the wealthy to provide charity for the poor.

It wasn't the job of government to look after the poor people.

This attitude began to change towards the end of the Elizabethan period.

But for the vast majority of the Tudor period and the vast majority of Elizabeth's reign, that was the abiding thought of the government at the time.

This does need to be taken into account, because social historians can't fall into the trap of judging past societies by the standards that we hold today.

It is just not fair.

We're asking people to think in ways that would've been completely alien to them.

So we need to judge past societies by their own standards.

Now the social historian and broadcaster Ian Mortimer believes that the Elizabethan poor were forgotten.

They were marginalised in comparison to other groups in society.

And he argues that for the poor at least, there was no Golden Age during the Elizabethan period.

However, another social historian, James Sharpe, instead argues that the poor were absolutely not forgotten.

And his evidence is the Elizabethan Poor Law, and he considers that to be one of the greatest achievements of the Elizabethan period.

And again, we're putting that in comparison to all those other things we've spoken about in this lesson as well.

Things like Drake's circumnavigation, the rise of theatre, the defeat of the Spanish armada.

James Sharpe says that all of that pales in comparison to the Elizabethan Poor Law.

And he says in part that's because it established a strong legacy that the government was at least partly responsible for the welfare of the poorest members of society.

So let's have a quick check for understanding now.

So true or false.

Ian Mortimer thinks the Elizabethan period cannot be considered a Golden Age for the poor.

Is that true or is that false? Okay, if you chose true, then congratulations.

That is true.

But let's justify that statement now.

Why is it true? Is it true because he thinks the poor were attacked and abused by the rich? Or is it true because he thinks the poor were forgotten and marginalised? So choose your justification now.

All right, if you chose B, then well done.

That is indeed correct.

Let's have another check for understanding though.

Why does James Sharpe think the Elizabethan period was a Golden Age for the poor? Does he think that because the poor got to experience a great deal of entertainment? Does he think that because the Elizabethan Poor Law supported those who were unable to support themselves? Or does he think that because the growth of the economy meant that nobody went hungry during this period? So make your choice now.

Okay, if you chose B, then well done.

That is indeed the correct answer.

Right, let's go for our final task for today then.

So I'd like us to answer this question here.

Should the Elizabethan period be considered a Golden Age for the poor? And I'd like you to write a balanced answer to this question.

So what I mean by that is, first of all, I want you to show an understanding about how it can indeed be considered a Golden Age.

What evidence do you have to say that, yes, the Elizabethan period was indeed a Golden Age? And then I'd like you to counter that by explaining how it could not be seen as a Golden Age.

What evidence is there to say that this was not a Golden Age? Once you've done that, once you've demonstrated your understanding of both sides of the question, I then want you to finish off by giving me your opinion.

So overall, what do you think about the Elizabethan period? Was it a Golden Age for the poor or not? And again, it doesn't matter what your opinion is.

You can't be wrong.

What matters is why you think that.

So make sure that you fully explain your opinion as well.

And use plenty of specific evidence to support your point of view.

So pause the video.

Want you to have a go on this.

And I'll see you once you've finished.

Okay, welcome back.

Hopefully you got on fine with that task.

Let's have a look and see what a possible answer could look like.

So here's my answer on the screen here.

So I said there is evidence to suggest that the Elizabethan period can be considered a Golden Age for the poor.

For instance, the Elizabethan Poor Law provided aid for the impotent poor and work for the able-bodied poor.

This meant that many people who would've starved or had to resort to begging did not have to do so.

However, there is evidence that the Elizabethan period was not a Golden Age for the poor.

For example, the heroic sailors who defeated the Spanish armada either died of disease and malnutrition or were forced into a life of poverty and begging as they were not supported by the Elizabethan government.

This suggests that once they had done what Elizabeth's government wanted them to do, they were no longer of any use and were therefore forgotten about because they were poor and lacked influence.

Overall, the Elizabethan period cannot be considered a Golden Age for the poor.

Although the Elizabethan Poor Law did go some way to improving the lives of the poor, it was only enacted in 1601, which was just two years before Elizabeth's reign ended and the end of the Tudor period.

This is too late to say that the poor were treated well during the entirety of the Elizabethan period.

For most of the time period, the poor were either ignored or punished for their situation.

So that's my answer there.

I've given evidence and have explained how the evidence supports the point of view that I'm making.

And I've also explained what my opinion is, and I've backed it up with evidence.

And again, I've explained how that evidence supports the point of view that I'm making.

So hopefully you've done something similar with your answer as well.

If it's different to what I've said, it's absolutely fine.

You cannot be wrong as long as you've explained why you think whatever it is that you think.

Right, let's summarise the lesson now then.

So many people consider the Elizabethan period to be a Golden Age.

There is evidence that both supports and contradicts this idea when looking at the lives of the poor during this period.

Social historians study the lives of ordinary people in history and some social historians argue that the Elizabethan period cannot be considered a Golden Age for the poor.

Thank you very much for joining me today.

Hopefully you've enjoyed yourself.

Hopefully you've learned something, and hopefully I see you again next time.

Bye-Bye.