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.
Wormald makes little effort to examine the attitudes of regular subjects towards King James, and this arguably limits how convincing this piece may be considered. While this evidence is extremely useful, it seems inappropriate to make judgements on the popularity of James in either England or Scotland without considering the attitudes of the common people, who were the majority of the population.

Reference to historiography is present, and Wormald mostly makes her position within the historiographical debates clear. This being said, references are somewhat sporadic and tend to appear in isolation rather than in contrast to other views, limiting the extent to which the debates can be understood in the wider context of the historiography. Wormald refers to both individual scholars in the text, and to wider schools of thought such as the Whigs and the revisionists. Wormald engages with the scholars she references, rather than passively repeating their arguments. She uses these references well to structure her own arguments, making for a more convincing and coherent piece of work. However, Wormald falls short in her conclusion, where her overall arguments and position in the debates could have been stated more explicitly. While providing the views of revisionists and historians of the localities, she fails to locate her own argument, which confuses the reader's overall understanding of the work.

Wormald's explanations of her points are not always infallible.
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
strengthened.