|
Post by Admin on Jan 17, 2023 18:54:04 GMT
One of England's worst kings. Reigned 1377-1399, son of Edward The Black Prince and Joan of Kent and grandson of Edward III. Best remembered for the Peasants Revolt and being usurped by his cousin Henry Bolingbroke.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 5, 2023 15:49:36 GMT
I once called Richard II a nasty piece of work, or words to that effect, but I've since come to change my mind a little bit on him. I think he could be vindictive and cruel times but not altogether unusual for a man of his time. He was more petulant and immature. He rather brought on his deposition in 1399 himself but he was not a tyrant in the same way as, let's say, King John. What do YOU make of Richard ii?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2024 20:11:27 GMT
A 14th century writer John Trevisa gave his views on the character of English people during the Middle Ages. Trevisa described people in the south as being mild mannered but his views on those in the north was altogether less flattering. According to John, Northerners were less stable and more cruel. However, John's views should be taken with a pinch of salt. John himself was a Southerner, originally from Cornwall, so perhaps a little biased. Secondly, and more importantly, the Peasants Revolt of 1381 was a rebellion that began in Kent and Essex and exploded into a fireball of rage that was largely restricted to the South, although there were outbreaks of violence as far north as Yorkshire. This rather puts paid to John's opinion that Southerners were more easy going than their Northern counterparts. England in the medieval period could be a volatile place, wherever you happened to live.
England, in the previous centuries, had seen long periods of instability, notably during the reigns of kings Stephen, John, Henry III and Edward II. So, it is possible one may assume that civil unrest was a part of England's national identity during the middle ages. However, the outbreak of the Peasants Revolt cannot simply just be attributed to the nature of the English population at the time. There were different causes for it and, when studied in closer detail, the frustrations of the men and women of Kent, Essex and other areas becomes more understandable.
The king at the time of the Peasants Revolt was the young Richard II, just 14 years old in 1381. However, trouble had been brewing long before Richard had come to the throne in 1377. In the late 1340s, during the reign of Richard's grandfather Edward III, the Black Death struck England where, as it had done throughout Europe and beyond, it wreaked havoc It's estimated that a third of England's population was killed by the disease. Villages, towns and cities were decimated as, in some areas, barely enough people were left alive to bury the dead. The rich had a better chance of surviving the outbreak as they could escape to one of their country estates where the worst of the Plague could be avoided. It was the more common folk in towns and cities who were particularly affected.
However, with the disaster came unexpected opportunities for those who had been used to toiling for very little reward. Labourers were now in high demand due to their lack of numbers. This meant they could reasonably expect to ask for higher wages for their services. Edward III, though, became increasingly concerned by this sudden inflation of wages as he found his nobles were being forced to pay more to those they were employing, meaning they had less finances available for Edward's military campaigns in France. Labourers who were seen as overreaching and perhaps even greedy began to be persecuted and many were thrown into prison. In 1349, with the plague still rampant, the king passed a statute attempting to lower labourers wages back to the levels they were before the outbreak of the Black Death. In 1351, Edward went one step further and passed the Statute of Labourers which more clearly defined the wages that could be expected by people in different lines of work, ranging from those working in the fields to carpenters, tailors and shoemakers.
The efficiency of Edward's government meant that the king's coffers continued to fill. However, there is absolutely no question whatsoever that this would have caused tremendous resentment across the population. Whilst Edward was still in his pomp in the 1350s, he could still keep a firm grip on his kingdom. But as he began to near old age, his grip would slacken and, by the 1370s, the country began to fall apart as the king's health declined. England began to lose control of the wars in France as the French king Charles V began to reverse the earlier English victories. Defeats and losses of territories in France would have not only affected the economy but also the nation's morale. With the old king nearing his end, England found itself in an increasingly precarious position. Edward had started what would become known as The Hundred Years War with France and his military aggression paid off with some great victories at Crecy and Poitiers among others. But now the tables had turned. England was now very much at risk of a French invasion. The mood among the common population at this time must have been fairly grim. Prospects of a brighter future for them financially, that the Plague had unexpectedly presented them with,had been firmly dashed by Edward III and now their homes and lives were threatened by a potential foreign invasion. In the years following Edward III's death, 3 poll taxes were imposed on the country just to cheer them even further. This would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
|
|