Hello, I'm Mr. Marchin, and I'll be your history teacher for today.

I'm really looking forward to starting our learning journey together, and my role will be to make sure that you can meet today's learning objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the English Civil War, where we've been asking ourselves, what can political pamphlets tell us about politics in 17th-century England? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to explain how historians have used pamphlets to understand 17th-century politics in England.

There are three key words which are gonna help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are provenance, purpose, and propaganda.

The background of a source is known as its provenance.

This includes who, why, and when it was written.

The reason why a source was made is known as its purpose and propaganda is information, often false, which is published by a person or group to make others agree with them.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts, and we'll begin by focusing on some of the pamphlets produced in the 17th century.

Pamphlets were printed in large numbers between 1640 and 1660 in England.

What they say can reveal a lot about politics in 17th century England.

So we'll look at a selection of specific pamphlets from this period.

"The Grand Remonstrance" was a pamphlet published in 1641.

It was published by Parliament itself, and it included complaints about Catholics.

It also included requests to the king to let Parliament approve his choice of advisors.

The pamphlet can help tell historians about the causes of the Civil War as it highlights some of the disagreements, both political and religious, which were beginning to emerge between the King and his parliament.

So thinking about what we've just heard, what did the pamphlet, "The Grand Remonstrance" ask for? Was it for Parliament to have more control over the king's choice of advisors, for Parliament to have less control over the king's choice of advisors, or for parliament to get rid of the king and his advisors? Pause the video here, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

The pamphlet, "The Grand Remonstrance," was published by Parliament, and asked the king to give Parliament more control over his choice of advisors.

Parliament was particularly concerned that the king might even be choosing some Catholics and putting them in positions of power.

"Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" was a pamphlet published in 1643.

This means that the pamphlet was actually published during the Civil War at a time when Parliamentarians and Royalists were already fighting against one another.

The pamphlet included claims that many leading Royalists were actually Catholics, and it was published by the Parliamentarian site.

So thinking about that pamphlet, what claim did the Civil War pamphlet, "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" make? Was it that King Charles I was a Catholic, that many Parliamentarians were actually Catholics or that many Royalists were actually Catholics? Pause the video here, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

The pamphlet, "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" made the claim that many Royalists who were supporting King Charles affairs were actually Catholics looking for an opportunity to threaten the Protestant religion of most people who lived in England.

The pamphlet, "Pretended Judges," was published in 1649.

This means it was produced after the end of the first and second English Civil Wars, and also after King Charles I had been executed on charges of treason.

The pamphlet called the regicide of Charles I a Murder.

It argued that the judges involved had lacked the right to put the king on trial, and it tells us as historians quite clearly that there was opposition to the regicide of Charles I.

So let's make sure that our knowledge is secure.

On the screen, we have a statement that says, "Only Royalists shared the pamphlet, "Pretended Judges" view the regicide.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our answer.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that, Anne Fairfax disrupted the King's trial to argue the judges lacked support.

The other says that the New Model Army were major supporters of the regicide.

So which one of those two justifications best supports our original statement? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the best justification was A, Anne Fairfax disrupted the king's trial to argue the judges lacked support.

In fact, when the lead judge in the trial against Charles I had said that all of England supported the trial, Anne Fairfax had argued back that less than a quarter of people in the country actually supported putting the king on trial.

So we can see from that that it was more than just Royalists who opposed the regicide.

"The Cry of a Stone" was a pamphlet published by Anna Trapnel in 1654.

Trapnel was a puritan, and in her pamphlet, she recorded some of her religious visions, including one when Cromwell attacked a group of Saints.

When we talk about Saints, we're considering men who were regarded as being very holy and religious.

The pamphlet also predicted and celebrated that God would end the Protectorate.

The Protectorate being the system of government that had been set up in England a few years after the regicide of Charles I.

It was this Protectorate, which was led by Oliver Cromwell.

And so as historians, the pamphlet, "The Cry of a Stone," tells us very clearly that there was opposition to Cromwell's rule from Puritans.

So thinking about what we've just heard, we have a statement on the screen that's either true or false.

It says, Anna Trapnel's pamphlet supported Cromwell and the Protectorate.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our answers as well.

So two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that Trapnel now wrote that God was not pleased with the Protectorate.

The second says that trap now wrote that God was not pleased with the regicide of Charles I.

Which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A, Anna Trapnel wrote in her pamphlet that God was not pleased with the Protectorate, and as a result we can tell that she did not support Cromwell, or the Protectorate, which he led.

And finally, for our consideration today, the pamphlet called "The Welcome Restoration" was published in 1660.

It was published by a man called George Willington, who was a Puritan.

In it, Willington celebrated the Restoration of King Charles II, which happened in 1660, 11 years after Charles I had been executed.

In the pamphlet, Willington asked Charles II to introduce Puritan restrictions on sinful activities like breaking a Sabbath.

This pamphlet tells us that there was support for the Restoration.

So thinking about what we've just heard, is the following statement, true or false? No Puritans supported the Restoration.

Is that true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everyone who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our answers.

So we have two justifications which have appeared on the screen.

The first says that George Willington's pamphlet welcome the Restoration.

The second says that Charles II was able to return from exile in 1660.

So which one of those two justifications is best for showing our original statement was false.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the best justification was a, that George Willington's pamphlet welcomed the Restoration.

Willington was a Puritan.

So it's quite clear that Puritans must have supported the Restoration or some Puritans must have supported it based on his own experience and what he wrote.

Although it's true that Charles II was able to return from exile in 1660, that fact doesn't inherently prove that Puritan supported the Restoration.

So we have to be careful of what examples were using using.

So considering everything that we've heard so far in a lesson, we are ready to put our knowledge into practise.

I want you to match each of the four pamphlets, shown in our left hand column, with what they can tell historians about 17th-century politics shown in the right hand column.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the correct matchups.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So I asked you to match to the pamphlets with what they can tell historians about 17th-century politics.

If we were thinking about the pamphlet, "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" well that can tell historians that many leading Royalists were actually Catholics.

In our second pamphlet from our list, "Pretended Judges," that can tell historians that people opposed the regicide.

The third pamphlet, "The Cry of a Stone," can tell historians that some puritans opposed the Protectorate.

And the pamphlet, "The Welcome Restoration," can tell historians that the Restoration of Charles II was popular, that many people supported it.

So really well done for your work on that task, especially if you matched up each of those pamphlets with what they can tell us correctly.

So now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today where we're gonna focus on pamphlets and their provenance.

Provenance refers to the background of a source.

This includes a source's purpose, why it was made, its author who wrote it, and also its date, IE when it was written.

So provenance, three key things we have to think about, purpose, author, and date.

So let's just check our understanding is really secure there.

What is not considered part of the provenance of a source? Is it A, what the source says, B, when the source was written, C, who wrote the source, or D, why the source was written.

Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A, what the source says is not considered part of the provenance of a source, because what it says its content is different from the background of the source itself.

IE who made it when it was made and why it was made.

Or in other words, the purpose, author, and date of the source.

The provenance of a source can affect how we understand what the source actually says or shows.

Historians must carefully consider the provenance of their sources.

So let's think about our source, 'The Welcome Restoration," that pamphlet published in 1660.

We've heard that this pamphlet suggests the Restoration was popular.

Its purpose, something we need to keep in mind, was to get something from the king.

So this means it's possible that the pamphlet may have exaggerated just how popular the Restoration was in order to flatter the king.

If the author, George Willington, could successfully flatter the king, he might put him in a more receptive mood to grant the sort of things that Willington was asking for.

So thinking about what we've just heard, I want you to write the missing word in the following sentence, "Because 'The Welcome Restoration' was written to ask for something from the king, it is possible the author may have," blank, "The amount of support for the Restoration." So what's the missing word? Pause the video here, and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the missing word was exaggerated, because "The Welcome Restoration" was written to ask for something from the king, it is possible the author may have exaggerated the amount of support for the Restoration.

It's possible that Willington may have been trying to flatter the king and exaggerating the popularity of the Restoration could be one way of trying to achieve this.

So let's think about another one of our pamphlets, "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert." This tells us that many leading Royalists were Catholics, but it was published as propaganda.

So it's possible that this pamphlet may have exaggerated the level of Catholic influence on Royalists, because ultimately published during the time of the War, it was trying to make sure that people would support parliament rather than the Royalist side.

So thinking about what we've just heard, why might "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" have exaggerated Catholic influence over the Royalists? Is it because its purpose was to stop people supporting either side, because its purpose was to stop people supporting the Parliamentarians or because its purpose was to stop people supporting the Royalists? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the correct answer was C.

It's possible that "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" may have exaggerated Catholic influence over the Royalists in order to get people to stop supporting the Royalists.

This pamphlet was published by the Parliamentarians, so it was in their interest to reduce the amount of people who would support their enemies during the Civil War.

So thinking about everything we've heard about pamphlets and provenance, I want you to answer the following question.

Why do historians need to be careful when using pamphlets, such as "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" to understand politics in the 17th century? I want you to write one paragraph to answer the question.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all your hard work on that task.

So I asked you why do historians need to be careful when using pamphlets such as "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" to understand politics in the 17th century? Your answer may have included, historians need to be careful when using pamphlets such as "Conversation between a Cavalier and a Convert" because it was written as a piece of propaganda, the pamphlet may have exaggerated Catholic influence over the Royalists to stop people from supporting the Royalists during the Civil War.

So really well done if your own answer looks something similar to that model we've just gone through, and now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson today where we are gonna think about pamphlets and historians.

When historians think about their sources, it's important that they consider both their strengths and their limitations.

So we are gonna look at an analysis of how a specific pamphlet could help historians understand 17th-century politics.

Historians have used pamphlets to help understand that there was popular support for the Restoration.

For example, George Willington wrote a pamphlet in 1660, which said that it was a "Great joy and comfort" for all of Charles II subjects to seem him crowned king.

This suggests that there was a lot of excitement and happiness for the return of the English monarchy.

However, historians have to keep in mind that Willington was also writing to Charles II to introduce Puritan restrictions.

It is possible that Willington exaggerated the levels of support for the Restoration.

He may have believed that he was more likely to get what he asked for if he also flattered the king.

This is an example of a really excellent analysis of what a specific pamphlet can tell historians about 17th-century politics.

So we're gonna look at it in a little bit more detail to understand what makes it so good.

This analysis begins well by identifying something specific that the pamphlet can tell us.

In this case that there was popular support for the Restoration.

This analysis is also strong because it identifies a specific pamphlet, "The Welcome Restoration," written by George Willington.

This analysis is also strong because as well as identifying a specific pamphlet, it also includes a quote from that pamphlet.

In this case, the line that Willington wrote, "It was a great joy and comfort for all the Charles's subjects to see him crowned." Just as this analysis does, whenever you are evaluating or discussing a written source, you should always include a quote from it.

But this analysis goes further than just including a quote.

It also explains the relevance of that quote.

In this case, it tells us that the line there being a great joint comfort about the Restoration suggests that there was happiness for the return of the English monarchy.

So thinking about everything that we've heard so far, when you analysing what a written source such as a pamphlet talks about, what should you always include in your response? Is it the date, the provenance, or a quote? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody if you said the correct answer was C.

Whenever you are analysing a written source, such as a pamphlet, you should make sure that you include a quote.

This shows that you're engaging with the specific type of source material that you are talking about.

Another reason why that analysis was so strong was because it identified part of the provenance of the pamphlet which he was discussing.

In this case, it talked about the purpose of George Willington, that he was writing to ask Charles II to introduce Puritan restrictions.

In this instance, our analysis then acknowledges some of the problems that might occur because of this provenance.

It says that it's possible the author may have exaggerated the levels of support for the Restoration, and we also get an explanation of why that's a risk here, because the author was trying to get something from the king.

So he may have been trying to flatter his reader by exaggerating.

So thinking about what we've just seen, is it true or false that historians should only consider the strengths of the sources that they use? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we want to justify our answer as well.

So two justifications have appeared at the bottom of the screen.

The first says that historians get the best understanding of the past by thinking about a source's limitations as well as its strengths.

The other says that the limitations of a source are more important than any strengths which it might have.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said the better justification was A, historians do get the best understanding of the past by thinking about a source's limitations as well as its strengths.

So we are now in a good position to put all of our knowledge and understanding about pamphlets and historians into practise.

I want you to select a pamphlet we have studied from the 17th century and write one paragraph to explain what your chosen pamphlet tells us about 17th-century politics.

When writing a paragraph, think of the following success criteria.

To ensure you produce an excellent analysis, you should identify something that the pamphlet tells us about the 17th century.

You should provide a quote from the pamphlet.

You should explain what your quote reveals, and you should also identify something about the provenance of the pamphlet and explain why that could be an issue.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your response.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task, especially because I was asking you to do such a lot.

So I asked you to write one paragraph to explain what your chosen pamphlet tells us about 17th-century politics.

Your answer may have included that historians have used pamphlets to understand that some people sided with parliament during the Civil War, because of religious concerns.

For example, a pamphlet called "A Conversation Between a Cavalier and a Convert" said that King Charles was surrounded by a crowd of Papists and evil advisors who threatened Protestantism.

This shows that some people sided with parliament, because they were worried that the king was not doing enough to protect the country from Catholics.

However, historians must be careful, because the pamphlet was a piece of propaganda.

It probably exaggerated the influence of Catholics in order to convince more people to support parliament.

So really well done if your own answer looks something like that model, because as I said, when I set the task, we needed to be identifying something that the pamphlet told us, providing a quote to back it up, explaining the relevance of our quote, and also discussing the provenance of the source, and that's what makes this model so strong.

So we are now at the end of our lesson, which puts us in a good position to summarise our learning about popular political pamphlets in the 17th century.

We've seen that many pamphlets were published in the years, 1640 to 1660, and that historians can use these to understand politics during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, The Interregnum and a Restoration.

Pamphlets were produced for a range of purposes, including as propaganda during the Civil War, and the provenance of a source can affect how it represents a historical issue.

Historians must consider this when using sources.

So thank you very much for all of your hard work in today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure joining you for all of it, and I look forward to seeing you again in future.