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
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