Source based question: using the sources, assess how convincing the arguments are in relation to the threat to Henry VII in the years 1485-1509.

*(I'll put the sources on the whiteboard or explain them, but a lot of history a level is sourced based so I felt it appropriate to use them)
These sources address the stability of Henry VII and comment on his security as reigning monarch. Extract A supports the notion that there was no significant threat to Henry VII during his reign. Interestingly, this extract outlines two key sources of threat; dynastic and the threat faced from the peasantry, this is an important distinction to make. This source suggests that the minimal threat faced by Henry VII was due not to his rivalry with other noblemen, but with uprisings from the peasantry due to high taxation and dissatisfaction with how those finances were being obtained. This source also focuses on only one uprising in 1497, relatively early in Henry VII's reign, it is therefore important to look at other sources that detail the later part of his reign post 1500.
However, extract B disagrees with the sentiment of extract A by stating that Henry VII faced problems within the nobility. This source suggests that the threat could have been exaggerated or invented by other noblemen or that the threat could have been a real prospect that Henry VII rightly feared. In writing that there was 'wavering support for the King in the old ranks', Mackie suggests that these fears were not unfounded, this is reinforced by the well documented arrests and executions made by Henry VII.
*Would continue with extract C which is a more measured source and could be used to support or refute A and B