Wormald's Argument Analysis

Wormald consistently and effectively uses evidence from both contemporary and modern sources to support her arguments throughout the article. Her evidence is largely used critically, with evaluation of source material appearing in either the main body of the text or in the footnotes. Consequently, this evaluation of evidence provides for a stronger and more convincing argument by demonstrating the reliability of her sources. Wormald is also able to acknowledge flaws in her evidence, but successfully justifies the use of flawed evidence by arguing for its importance, and demonstrating how it can still support her arguments, such as the vengeful writings of Anthony Welton. It is unclear, however, exactly how far the evidence may be extrapolated to the wider British population, as much of the evidence is taken from upper class and educated individuals in personal contact with the king.
Her offerings of background information are succinct and focused, which makes her writing comprehensive and clear, but her explanation of key points can be lacking. For example, when discussing the role of favourites, in particular, the Duke of Buckingham, her point becomes somewhat confused by lack of clarity and detail. More explicit discussion and analysis of James' relationship with Buckingham and the effect of this on his government would benefit here in general understanding of her argument. Wormald also, on occasion, neglects critical detail in making her arguments. Her argument for the Scottish Kirk being the most dangerous threat to James power is undermined, for example, by her failure to discuss the Gunpowder Plot in 1605. This key event in James' reign, motivated by religion, does not necessarily impair her argument, however, her failure to address it does. Had Wormald argued for the Kirk as a greater threat than the Catholics in the light of the Gunpowder Plot, her argument could have been much