To Delve and Spin – A Medieval English timeline

Well, if in France and in Scotland along with the English exiles, were enraged and worried about the ongoing English 'commoners' revolt and takeover , I'd say that this new Parliament would have them frightened even more so than the still ongoing 'Kentish Purge'. Also, I should say that was expecting for the Parliament to be a moderate one, instead that it be the one organizing and enacting the purge. Finally, I would expect that already there would be worry in Rome and that both the English exiles and the French court pressuring to the Pope, to condemn the English commoners or even to interdict to England...
The new Parliament does scare the rest of Europe. As to the acts enabling the purge, they are based off Henry IV's anti-Lollard legislation. Having said this, there is no "Gauntist" fifth column. Some local plots did exist to displace the revolt and were largely ineffective but the broad-scale burnings are largely the product of paranoia.

In terms of how radical it is, the Kentish Purge isn't as widespread as the Reign of Terror but it will be broader than Mary I's burning of Protestants.

Just want to say that however way you fare in the Turtledoves this is one of the most original and well-written TLs I have read in a while, advise everyone to pair it with @Xekimus La Guillotine Permanent if you enjoy revolutionary content and hope both of you remain giving great reading material in the coming future
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll give it a read.
 
This is a very exciting TL about a topic that, as others have remarked, has not received by far the attention it deserves. Thank you, @BurkeanLibCon ! I like how it stays focused, yet integrates relevant consequences on the continent; how it is very radical indeed, but neither rose-tinted utopian nor misanthropic dystopian.

Also, thank you @Shevek23 for your magnificent wall of text with its very detailed and plausible speculation about possible future developments arising from the divergences created in this TL.
Because nobody answered to the many different theses you put forth, I'll jump in and engage some of them. On the whole, I very much agree with how you view things.

and of course if they had their way completely, there would be no royal taxes whatsoever, no dues to any gentry, and perhaps not even a very humble and hand to mouth priesthood nor a church--they might want church in the abstract, but would they freely and voluntarily pay to sustain what they expect a church to give them, in material terms?
Lollardy! Burn the Gauntist! :openedeyewink:
No, honestly: What makes you think English people in the late 14th century would have preferred "church in the abstract" over actual priests, even if they cost a little? Later on, you do tend in other directions (married priests etc), and I would agree more with that. Religious "division of labour", with sacerdotal jobs reserved for specialists, can be observed in a great many societies even without steep social hierarchies. Now, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century Christianity may, in some branches, exist quite well with laypeople doing all the stuff, but 14th century European Christianity had, I believe, a much greater demand for priestly work.
Can England, even if we were to make little of the further hurdles the Tyler-Ball led movement, and figure Richard plays a most useful role in tying together a new regime fast, hope to defend itself by sea alone?
As you deduced yourself, no. But then again, peasant republics don't have to, as you also worked out well. Switzerland - protected by mountains just as much or little as Britain is by sea - did it quite well, and it even continually exported soldiers.
Then of course there remains Scotland to the north, for the moment anyway not facing any peasant revolts of its own, though perhaps that could change, which has allied with John of Gaunt once already--and got their clock cleaned to be sure, but sending the Scots back to Scotland is one thing, deterring them from striking again, and again, and again whenever they think it expedient, is something else.
The Scots will come, and just as well, there could be "joyrides" of pillaging revenge. Some modus vivendi will probably be found again. In the short run, Scotland is the haven of the ancien regimists, but over time, it is ill-suited to continually exaggerate the trouble-seeking when its Southern neighbour is stronger after all.
But if the peasants are not to suffer the same fate as OTL just a few years later if that, such an army has to lean on the villages themselves agreeing to shoulder the burden, to pay considerable sums of wealth in some form or other to sustain the forces, land and sea, and to allow their own sons (and daughters, there are always a few women sneaking into nominally all-male forces, generally by disguising their sex) to be taken off to be drilled up into soldiers and often never return, either being killed off or winding up settling into life somewhere far away. Meanwhile the crops still have to be grown, peasant industry still has to be performed.
The Black Death is a few decades away now - I don't know how much population has rebounded yet, but quite soon, over the course of the 15th century, England would rather again face over- than underpopulation. Also, while everything you say above is true, it's just one side of the medal. The other is the gains and spoils of war: A son in the army is one who makes his own living, and if you have seven of them plus five daughters, everyone who earns their own bread is his father's and mother's joy. Maybe he doesn't come back - but the same goes for miners, and much like miners, soldiers can also come home with stuff you wouldn't have dreamed off, and with prestige.
What is England's larger geopolitical situation, aside from the specific obsessions of old regimist conservatives like Gaunt whom I suppose might be exhausted after a while, or mere opportunism of would-be predators who try to invade to get the wealth of a kingdom on the cheap as they hoped, only to find themselves checked and repelled and re-evaluating the new regime as a force to be treated with care and respect?

If they are going to prosper at all in England, the peasants mainly just want to be left alone, but the fact is a certain amount of trade is also part of their lives and if that dries up completely, they won't be happy about it--however much they distrust, or outright hate, actual traders they do tend to meet. That's why the mob in London went on a pogrom against the Flemings of course, or anyone who said "eggs and cheese" in accents the mob members present thought might be Flemish. The Flemings had a de facto monopoly on the wool trade and common English people had serious resentments against what they thought of as sharp practices (we'd probably agree with the peasants too if we had to trade on analogous terms I'd think, though surely we wouldn't think we'd just ethnically cleanse them, or anyway hope not). Certainly the better off classes would deem it quite a hardship to do without foreign trade.

But would not the various Continental authorities, even if they find it a fool's errand to send invaders to try to conquer England in toto, at least attempt to close their ports to any English ships, and set upon any English crews that attempt to land, lest they spread the contagion of this grassroots vague egalitarianism?
As far as trade is concerned, I would not be quite so pessimistic. The sea is wide, it's not the Bosphorus Straits, late medieval "states" are not really such effective beasts as to be able to close all their ports to English ships, merchants will seek opportunities under any disguise and through intermediaries, and I can see quite a number of European polities who would not have second thoughts about trading with the English.
Then there is the religious angle to consider. [...]
But it seems pretty much a foregone conclusion--not because the English are specially some kind of natural "Anglicans" with the King James Bible or some Middle English edition of it and the Book of Common Prayer ditto in their blood somehow along with Caesaropapism, but simply because the mob, all across Europe and throughout the entire Middle Ages and into modern times, is quite often out of step with the Catholic hierarchy on this or that point--that Richard must either flee and seek refuge elsewhere, or give his assent to something or other the Curia, and with them many otherwise rival factions of secular rulers on the mainland, will see as open and shut heresy, and very dangerous in form.
I am curious how this turns out. Our author has already enhanced orthodoxy in a way, what with the Lollards being persecuted by the new regime, and now even Ball is dead. Your arguments in the next few hundred lines about clerical marriage make a convincing read, but when I look at similar grassroots polities elsewhere on the continent - from the mountains of Switzerland over the various autonomous communes to the Dalmatian pirate republics -, they don't all tend against Roman Catholicism and in favour of married priests. Sure communalist 12th century Southern France turned quite Cathar, and of course we have the Hussites, but the other examples given were not, so I would think this might have less to do with the socio-economic base after all.
Then there is the matter of translating the Bible itself and other key traditional Catholic texts into English.
That depends on how pronounced the proto-nationalism of this whole thing really turns out to be. It certainly is there (both within, see the treatment of the Flemish, and externally, hating the French and Scottish supporters of the old order), so I can certainly see this. Before the advent of the printing press, though, this is not quite the revolutionary thing it was in 16th century Germany.
I think there would have to be a Crusade. It might not have the success Continental authorities hope it would, but they are going to try to stamp out all this heathenish devilry pretty quick. It might take them so long to get a proper armada together they waste some effort in penny packet descents shooting as it were from the hip, and between these landings and general civil war in England, this buys time and experience for the new model army that might emerge in England to start forming and acquiring numbers and depth, so that when a properly organized armada comes in, it meets stiff opposition, and ultimately the invaders are killed, captured or send back into the sea to retreat home.
As long as all of this happens during the Papal Schism, the long-term damage may be limited. England is not necessarily a permanent pariah. Depending on how cunning its king and governments are, they might even get quite involved in the Councils that would lead up to healing the schism (or maybe it never heals?) and take something away from throwing their weight in with one or another faction.
But international trade ties would remain badly disrupted. Perforce the English would have to be autarkic, which is not that severe a hardship for them as it would be in later ages--but they are sidestepping the collective capitalist development of western Europe that happened to be taking root there in this time, and thus probably at best, even if they can secure their autonomy long term, isolate themselves and be bypassed.
I would expect, at least after some bumps in the road, quite the opposite.
Wherever political participation was widened, even if only by a bit, this tended to favour mercantile groups and policies suiting their interests even more. The new "Wonderful Parliament", as our author has labelled it, may have been elected by universal male suffrage in a country full of peasants, but the parliamentarians that were elected are the usual lot that would end up on all the city councils and limited parliaments elected anywhere up way into the 19th century: literate townsfolk plus some "gentry". I believe the stage is set for the development of quite a Merchant Republic of England.
 
This is a very exciting TL about a topic that, as others have remarked, has not received by far the attention it deserves. Thank you, @BurkeanLibCon ! I like how it stays focused, yet integrates relevant consequences on the continent; how it is very radical indeed, but neither rose-tinted utopian nor misanthropic dystopian.
Thanks for the kind words.

Lollardy! Burn the Gauntist! :openedeyewink:
No, honestly: What makes you think English people in the late 14th century would have preferred "church in the abstract" over actual priests, even if they cost a little? Later on, you do tend in other directions (married priests etc), and I would agree more with that. Religious "division of labour", with sacerdotal jobs reserved for specialists, can be observed in a great many societies even without steep social hierarchies. Now, 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century Christianity may, in some branches, exist quite well with laypeople doing all the stuff, but 14th century European Christianity had, I believe, a much greater demand for priestly work.
Is there any way you could simplify this, I'm not quite understanding what you said.

As you deduced yourself, no. But then again, peasant republics don't have to, as you also worked out well. Switzerland - protected by mountains just as much or little as Britain is by sea - did it quite well, and it even continually exported soldiers.
I like that comparison. I hadn't thought of English mercenaries in European service beyond the exiles attempting to gain influence in European courts.

The Scots will come, and just as well, there could be "joyrides" of pillaging revenge. Some modus vivendi will probably be found again. In the short run, Scotland is the haven of the ancien regimists, but over time, it is ill-suited to continually exaggerate the trouble-seeking when its Southern neighbour is stronger after all.

The Black Death is a few decades away now - I don't know how much population has rebounded yet, but quite soon, over the course of the 15th century, England would rather again face over- than underpopulation. Also, while everything you say above is true, it's just one side of the medal. The other is the gains and spoils of war: A son in the army is one who makes his own living, and if you have seven of them plus five daughters, everyone who earns their own bread is his father's and mother's joy. Maybe he doesn't come back - but the same goes for miners, and much like miners, soldiers can also come home with stuff you wouldn't have dreamed off, and with prestige.
The Scots are in a slash-burn-kill mode to reduce the economic strength of the English counties and attempt to discredit the idea of the Revolt by showing that it can't protect the people. It's not quite chevauchée but it's still quite damaging.

I don't believe the English population had recovered to pre-plague levels. The fact agricultural wages were going up at the time shows that demand for labour far exceeded supply.

As far as trade is concerned, I would not be quite so pessimistic. The sea is wide, it's not the Bosphorus Straits, late medieval "states" are not really such effective beasts as to be able to close all their ports to English ships, merchants will seek opportunities under any disguise and through intermediaries, and I can see quite a number of European polities who would not have second thoughts about trading with the English.

I am curious how this turns out. Our author has already enhanced orthodoxy in a way, what with the Lollards being persecuted by the new regime, and now even Ball is dead. Your arguments in the next few hundred lines about clerical marriage make a convincing read, but when I look at similar grassroots polities elsewhere on the continent - from the mountains of Switzerland over the various autonomous communes to the Dalmatian pirate republics -, they don't all tend against Roman Catholicism and in favour of married priests. Sure communalist 12th century Southern France turned quite Cathar, and of course we have the Hussites, but the other examples given were not, so I would think this might have less to do with the socio-economic base after all.

That depends on how pronounced the proto-nationalism of this whole thing really turns out to be. It certainly is there (both within, see the treatment of the Flemish, and externally, hating the French and Scottish supporters of the old order), so I can certainly see this. Before the advent of the printing press, though, this is not quite the revolutionary thing it was in 16th century Germany.
English traders will definitely have an influence spreading revolutionary ideas into Western Europe.

Religion will be covered in more detail in future chapters. As of now the Catholic Church in England is de-facto autonomous from Rome - to whom England is nominally loyal. The hierarchy appointed by the new government hasn't been approved by either Pope.

The Hundred Years' War had already begun to form a sense of "Englishness" and Richard II did incorporate parts from Edward the Confessor's arms into his own in OTL. The revolt was already pulling on certain English traditions before it was crushed in our world, such as the provisions of the 1285 Statute of Winchester. It's not 16th or 18th concepts of statehood, but there is a fairly firm concept of being English and knowing what it meant. Here it will overtly incorporate the ideas of limited rather than absolute government earlier on, although there are potential future conflict lines such as the power division between Parliament and the King and what is the legal status of former feudal estates - are they privately owned land or the domain of the King?
 
Is there any way you could simplify this, I'm not quite understanding what you said.
This was in reply to the yet more complex musings of Shevek23 on the topic of church and religion in a self-governed peasant society. At the beginning of his train of thought, he (or she?) posited that peasants may not want to spend money on any organised church at all and instead do the rituals themselves. He relativised this later on implicitly, but never actually addressed the question what was more likely: paying for priests or not? I wanted to chime in and say that, as religion before the 18th century was not seen as something "private" and individual, and as literacy is still low and Christianity is a scriptural religion and Catholicism a very ritualised version of it with clearly defined roles, and as peasants of the time would probably also want priests who can bless their new barn, exorcise the demons from a mad cow, properly baptise their newborn (and if it doesn't look like it's surviving long, give them their last ointment, too) etc. etc., I thought I would weigh in for the "paying for priests" option. The way you continued your TL so far seems to prove me right.
I like that comparison. I hadn't thought of English mercenaries in European service beyond the exiles attempting to gain influence in European courts.
It's probably still decades away, at least.
The Scots are in a slash-burn-kill mode to reduce the economic strength of the English counties and attempt to discredit the idea of the Revolt by showing that it can't protect the people. It's not quite chevauchée but it's still quite damaging.
That sounds a lot like there'll be quite a horrible punishment campaign against the Scots under way whenever England feels up to it.
Here it will overtly incorporate the ideas of limited rather than absolute government earlier on, although there are potential future conflict lines such as the power division between Parliament and the King and what is the legal status of former feudal estates - are they privately owned land or the domain of the King?
"Limited government" and "absolute governmen" are very modern concepts, I am not sure what they could even mean in a late medieval context...?! Also, if anything, this "Kentish purge" looks like "the political sphere" and "state organs" are very heavily poking their noses into any and every corner of peasant lives... almost totalitarian. But that could, of course, lead to the pendulum swinging back hard soon, and provisions against such arbitrary actions... hm. So far, what the rebels seem to be against is a) taxes on them, b) privileges for other people over them. Things have gone quite far in the b) direction and may stay that way, but the new Kingdom will need to finance itself and its war somehow, too (see Shevek's long and thoughtful post)... The questions of taxes, of privileges, and of liberties/procedural protection are probably quite separate from each other and may be difficult to weave together.
 
"Limited government” and “absolute governmen” are very modern concepts, I am not sure what they could even mean in a late medieval context...?! Also, if anything, this "Kentish purge" looks like "the political sphere" and "state organs" are very heavily poking their noses into any and every corner of peasant lives... almost totalitarian. But that could, of course, lead to the pendulum swinging back hard soon, and provisions against such arbitrary actions... hm. So far, what the rebels seem to be against is a) taxes on them, b) privileges for other people over them. Things have gone quite far in the b) direction and may stay that way, but the new Kingdom will need to finance itself and its war somehow, too (see Shevek's long and thoughtful post)... The questions of taxes, of privileges, and of liberties/procedural protection are probably quite separate from each other and may be difficult to weave together.
I wasn’t referring to “limited” or “absolute” government in a modern sense. It has more to do with the English monarchy being restrained by precedent, tradition and things such as the common law as opposed to more absolutist states in Europe. Is this narrative true or not? I’m not 100% sure, but constrained monarchical power is part of the England ‘story’ if you like.

The “Kentish Purge” being totalitarian? In some areas closer to London and the Southeast the purge is more radical and thorough, but elsewhere it’s not quite as intense. The closest parallel I can think of is Mary I’s burning of Protestants except on even flimsier legal grounds.
 
I wasn’t referring to “limited” or “absolute” government in a modern sense. It has more to do with the English monarchy being restrained by precedent, tradition and things such as the common law as opposed to more absolutist states in Europe. Is this narrative true or not? I’m not 100% sure, but constrained monarchical power is part of the England ‘story’ if you like.
Monarchy being restrained by precedent, tradition etc. is pretty much the standard in medieval Europe. HREmperors reiterated their "capitulations" before being payed hommage by their subjects, and similar things happened elsewhere, too. "Absolute" royal power is a concept whose strength and plausibility grew considerably in the Early Modern Age. So, objectively, this is not an English peculiarity. But of course, that doesn't mean its perception as "deeply English" can't become part of the nation's own narrative.
 
Monarchy being restrained by precedent, tradition etc. is pretty much the standard in medieval Europe. HREmperors reiterated their "capitulations" before being payed hommage by their subjects, and similar things happened elsewhere, too. "Absolute" royal power is a concept whose strength and plausibility grew considerably in the Early Modern Age. So, objectively, this is not an English peculiarity. But of course, that doesn't mean its perception as "deeply English" can't become part of the nation's own narrative.
True. I guess it became "deeply English" since England managed to avoid the trend of absolutism of the 17th and 18th centuries.
 
I just read through your story over a very enjoyable afternoon. Fantastic work.

Of course we're now settling in for the bloody phase of the revolution, but the revolters have extracted key concessions from the aristocracy and the church, and a shaky compromise has been reached.

What I'm waiting for is the revolution to turn inwards, and set the peasants against the landowners and merchants who had supported them. Absolute victory for the rioters! Avenge John Ball! Long live Justiciar Tyler!

P.S. are you planning to speed up the invention of certain technologies? An early printing press would be super super useful to this English revolutionary state.
 
I just read through your story over a very enjoyable afternoon. Fantastic work.

Of course we're now settling in for the bloody phase of the revolution, but the revolters have extracted key concessions from the aristocracy and the church, and a shaky compromise has been reached.

What I'm waiting for is the revolution to turn inwards, and set the peasants against the landowners and merchants who had supported them. Absolute victory for the rioters! Avenge John Ball! Long live Justiciar Tyler!

P.S. are you planning to speed up the invention of certain technologies? An early printing press would be super super useful to this English revolutionary state.
Thanks for the kind words.

At this point, the technological realities of administering a state like England means that complete purge such as the French Revolution or modern totalitarianism isn't really possible.

I hadn't reached the point of speeding up technological developments, I'd have to do further research on that when I'm less weighed down by work - I only just got round to updating my other timeline "Three Men, One Island".

Whilst a modern printing press would be useful, there are other means of telling revolutionary tales such as folk stories and songs. Robin Hood was beginning to emerge as a character around the same time in OTL.
 
I would think a more likely development would be in the textile industry. Early forms of the spinning wheel are just now beginning to pop up in Europe, but they're hand powered and the first foot treadle powered ones get invented in 'germany' in the 1530s or so OTL
 
I would think a more likely development would be in the textile industry. Early forms of the spinning wheel are just now beginning to pop up in Europe, but they're hand powered and the first foot treadle powered ones get invented in 'germany' in the 1530s or so OTL
I’m not that familiar with the history of the medieval textile trade. Can you explain any more?
 
Apologies for the lack of updates. I just wanted to reassure you that this isn’t dead, I’ve just had to prioritise other things and projects.

There will be an update soon, in the meantime here’s a relevant video from a history channel I like:

 
Chapter 11 – Wretches Detestable on Land and Sea New

Chapter 11 – Wretches Detestable on Land and Sea

January 1383 – March 1383

1663169959.jpg

"I am your captain, follow me!"

– Richard II of England




King Richard was unsatisfied as he sat at the head of the table eating his dinner of spit-roasted pork with warm pandemain bread, scallions and green vegetables. He may be the King of England, sitting at the head of the royal table inside the candle-lit dinner chamber, yet he felt as though he were being held as a hostage in a foreign realm awaiting release upon the payment of a suitable ransom. The royal palace at Eltham was one of the finest royal residences in London, the revolters had left the King’s own residences untouched, but to Richard it may as well be a common dungeon. Wat Tyler’s appointed guards standing like gargoyles outside the Palace may as well be his jailers. The Lord knew that his annointed-on-earth had about as much freedom to roam as did a common prisoner, especially since Bolingbroke had tried to make a run for it. Poor soul.

That detestable Kentish rustic Tyler had held England in his grip for over a year and a half now, since the summer uprisings in 1381. Was God on that commoner’s side? How else could his successes be explained, unless he were an agent of Antichrist, or sent to hasten the End Times. No, he did not appear to be devil incarnate, but he was a menace to the realm all the same. Perhaps the villeins’ demands that summer had been just. As he sat eating, he thought that perhaps the concessions in those initial charters, granting the end of serfdom, had been just. If the rebels had accepted those terms and gone home, order could have been easily restored and the country could be at peace. Instead, England had suffered from the battles, the destruction of great works, and the burnings. A sharp shiver shot up Richard’s spine.

Why had he been spared? Many other great men had not. Sudbury, Hailes, Arundel, Warwick, all long gone along with many others. What had made them spare his life? Did they genuinely respect him? They bowed in his presence and called him “Your majesty” which he liked, assuming they meant it. Did such thoughts hold after this long or were they mere theatrics to keep up the image that having no intention of dethroning God’s annointed, merely wishing to ‘advise’ him – more accurately to use him to give their actions a legal veneer through royal authority.

He was King in name only. His realm was being ruled without him at its healm, it made him feel powerless, it made him angry, it made him feel sick to his royal stomach. When he could, he shared his thoughts with the few people he could trust, such as Bolingbroke or his mother, the Dowager princess of Wales Joan of Kent. William Montagu, formally the Earl of Salisbury, also often listened to him, though he was often away working in Tyler’s army.


Bolingbroke was only alive because he’d used his royal authority to spare the boy. The two remained close friends despite Tyler’s deep mistrust of him as the son and heir of John of Gaunt. But so long as Richard trusted and protected him, he was safe, until he’d made off in the night. Then Richard could not protect him any longer after Bolingbroke, and his fate was now entirely in his own hands. Tyler had decided plainly that this 'traitor' was to be dealt with like all the others, and had attainted him like his father. Only time would tell whether Tyler's men would catch Bolingbroke before he could make it to Scotland. He hand't even told Richard of his plans to escape, so he was just as much in the dark as anyone else. What would Gaunt himself think if his son was caught and killed? Would he blame it on Tyler, or on Richard? He had no idea, except that he would have no say in the matter himself for he had not reached majority, and would not for another five years.

Is that how long it would be? Would he have to sit on his hands and wait five years whilst his country was ripped to shreds from beneath his feet? The thought made fury boil up inside him. When he got the chance to rule, he would RULE. He would be nobody's puppet King, he would rule as God's annointed should. He would be in control of himself and in control of his realm.





unknown-artist-richard-ii-presented-to-the-virgin-and-child-by-his-patron-saint-john-the-baptist-and-ss-edward-and-edmund-the-wilton-diptych-c-1395-e1277057588193.jpg

Since the revolt began in 1381, much of its success could be explained by the cooperation (willingly or otherwise) between King Richard II and the Revolters led by Wat Tyler. Royal approval allowed the Revolters to seize control of many of the institutions of government including the law courts, Parliament, and the Church. Since the beginning, Tyler and his colleagues had always paid respect to the King and his immediate family, including his mother Joan of Kent [1]. Their quarrel was not with the young King himself, seen universally as God's annointed ruler and as such was sacrosanct, but with his 'evil advisers' who misled him [2].

By 1383, Richard had still not reached the age of majority (21), and thus was advised by a Revolter-controlled "regency council" with Tyler leading. This fact also played into the hands of John of Gaunt and his allies, who could claim quite accurately that Richard was being held a captive.

For his part, Richard was beginning to find the situation he was in frustrating. He had all but allowed Tyler and his men to seize control of England, first out of necessity by agreeing to their initial demands, and then by the fact he had become trapped by the circumstances. He'd witnessed Tyler's army fight at both Brompton Field and Southwark, the latter from the Tower of London. Those events, as well as the burnings had left a firm impression upon the young Richard, not one that entirely aligned with the rebels vision for England. What Richard had learned was that a lack of firm royal authority would lead England into anarchy and brutal violence, an attitude that would shape the actions later in his reign.

Richard felt suffocated by his inability to rule as he believed a King should. In 1383 he turned 16, but events had matured him faster and his worldview was becoming increasingly solid. There were people close to Richard with whom he could confide. People like his mother, Joan of Kent, and Henry Bolingbroke [3], the son and heir of Lancaster himself. Bolingbroke had been spared from immediate death in 1381 by Richard's own intervention. In the eyes of the Revolters, Bolingbroke was as much a symbol of Gaunt as his misrule as his palaces and jewels were, but with the King himself intervening to protect him they could do nothing to him. With Gaunt's heir as Richard's personal prisoner (in name only), Richard had grown close to Bolingbroke and the two had become friends. In that time, Bolingbroke had begun to make moves of his own behind the scenes to break away from his captivity and reunite with his father. It was the fate of Bolingbroke that would trigger tensions between Richard and Wat Tyler, and would alter the nature of the Revolting Wars.




B002128.jpg
wattyler.jpg


Wat Tyler's stature had grown enormously throughout 1382 and 1383. Through chance, brute force and clever political maneuvering, he had become the second-most powerful man in England, besides King Richard himself. It was he who had guided the commons to the King, it was he who had triumphed by will of God at Brompton Field and at Southwark, and it was he that would rid England of the forces of Gaunt, the whores of Lancaster. His image had grown into a personality cult, with Tyler's name often spoken alongside that of the King. He was seen as "the most noble and memory worthy servant of His Majesty" and a "big brother" [4] to the common English people, who would lead them to the freedom and equality as God had intended when he made Adam and Eve in his image [5].

Despite his apparent successes, all had not gone well. The death of John Ball had shocked Tyler, and had him to take further precautions for his own safety. Upon th opening of the Wonderful Parliament, Tyler had pushed forward the establishment of the Commons of the Guard of our Lord the King (also known as the Commons at Arms), a personal bodyguard force to the King and his household, a force which effectively became Tyler's own guards who would follow him and the King at public appearances. The Commons at Arms were posted outside wherever the King was located, and depending on who you asked they were there to guard him or to keep him prisoner.




B000103.jpg


In March 1383, Henry Bolingbroke had made up his mind to escape London. He had witnessed the events of the past year, and noted that his father and his supposed influence were used to justify the burnings. He had decided that with the escalation of the conflict in England, even Richard may not be able to keep him safe. On the evening of March 14th, he put his plans into effect. He had already established friendly contact with a member of Tyler's Commons at Arms - a Kentishman by the name of Gerald Wright [6]. He quietly slipped away disguised as a groom [7] Wright the 5 shillings he had been promised and was led to the stables where he was united with his horse. From Eltham he departed south towards Hythe where he had made plans prior to his escape to hitch a boat up north and end up in Yorkshire from where he would ride into Scotland and reunite with his father.

Unfortunately for Bolingbroke, his letters had been intercepted. By the time he reached Ashford in Kent on the 18th, he was made aware of men pursuing him. They were certain to be Tyler's men. He went cold. By fleeing he had deprived himself of what little protection he had. If he was caught he was certain to be executed as a traitor. The next morning, Henry get on his horse and galloped like hell towards the Kent downs to the east, reaching the village of Crundale by the evening. His plan now was to reach Hythe via the Downs, hoping to hide amongst the landscape. Here he was, a grandson of King Edward III, forced to play hare and hound with commoners, with stakes that could be deadly.

Footnotes
- [1] This happened in OTL as well, the rebels allowed Joan to return to London after a pilgrimage and provided an escort for the trip.
- [2] An almost constant feature among rebellions in the pre-Enlightenment age. Even during the English Civil war in the 1640s, the stated goal of Parliament initially was to replace King Charles's advisers and steer him towards better rule.
- [3] In OTL, he became King Henry IV after deposing Richard in 1399.
- [4] Not a deliberate reference to 1984, but Tyler did refer to King Richard as a 'brother' in OTL, one of the reasons Richard didn't like him. Here, he learns to pay a bit more subservience to Richard (in name at least), whilst elsewhere his headstrong personality has only grown.
- [5] The revolt was heavily tied in with religious sentiments, with John Ball asking "When Adam delved and Eve snap, who was then the gentleman?" - hence the name of this timeline.
- [6] Another fictional character.
- [7] Groom here refers to the member of the King's household who tends the stables.

Comments?
 
Last edited:
It makes me think of emperor of Japan and the Shogun
Indeed, though, and at least so far, both his situation and his inner monologue remind me more, of a mix from the ones of Louis XVI/Charles I...
Also, would appear that if he would be able to avoid bad advised/decisions that he is waiting for be of age for' get rid' from all those doing it in his name like Tyler and start to exert his ('God's given') right to rule...
But, a lot has changed in a short time in his Realm and foreseeably, in five more years, a lot more will do and hopefully he will understand that would be impossible to annul/reverse most if not all of the socio-political changes that the Englisht Kingdom went through...
And, one of them, may perhaps, would be that the King would have to acknowledge an army independent from his command that his authority has limits/to 'share' it, not only with the parliament but, perhaps, even with a 'premier like' figure...
 
But, a lot has changed in a short time in his Realm and foreseeably, in five more years, a lot more will do and hopefully he will understand that would be impossible to annul/reverse most if not all of the socio-political changes that the Englisht Kingdom went through...
I think he'll always struggle to regain what he feels is his God given right, but his heir will only know this system.
 
I think he'll always struggle to regain what he feels is his God given right, but his heir will only know this system.
Indeed, but as in the examples of Monarchs that I mentioned, I'd assume that if he will not learn his new role/way to rule or won't be able to adapt to this new England. Then, I think that would be greater chances that wouldn't be an heir. Or at least not one of his line...
 
And, one of them, may perhaps, would be that the King would have to acknowledge an army independent from his command that his authority has limits/to 'share' it, not only with the parliament but, perhaps, even with a 'premier like' figure...
This lends itself to some interestingphilosophical discussions.

If, as you said, there isn't anything really new being created in the way of how the Enlightenment and other thigns created new ideas, then the King, as sovereign ruler, would have the natural right to lead the army in battle.

Yet, if a Parliament or some premeir-like figure were to have rule over the Army, it would lend itself to either the king placing himself under their jurisdiction (or the king simly not being one to go to war, something which would be unique to many Europeans.

Or...would it as much. Kings didn't particpate in naval battles to my knowledge, and I don't know how many naval battles there were that were really significant in this time period. But, perhaps that would be analogy that would be drawn, that the Army in this new system would become just like the navy of a land. So the king is not obligated to go to war himself.
 
Top