Introduction In June of 1381, England reeled from the social and economic effects of the Black Death and the Hundred Years War. The plague took no mercy based on socioeconomic class and affected nobility every bit as much as the peasant classes. Because of the egalitarian nature of the Black Death, the labor force of England suddenly found itself with improved bargaining powers vis-a-vis the elite. The population had thinned out to such a degree that labor supply could not keep up with the monarchy’s demands. Widely believed to be precipitated by both years of mismanaged economic growth culminating in the poll tax, the peasants; revolt was led by Wat Tyler who represented scores of laborers from multiple social classes. The peasants’ revolt also represents the first major populist uprising in Europe, illuminating the stark class cleavages in British society, particularly presaging a different relationship between monarch and people. While Richard II’s meek attempt at appeasement did not inspire confidence in the crown, the revolt cannot be traced to the boy king alone but was the result of generations of change and frustration within the Plantagenet monarchy.

Workers Unite

The peasants’ revolt was systemic, caused by decades of economic mismanagement and worker exploitation. While it was easy to perpetuate the system of serfdom when there was a glut of labor, the Black Death culled the labor force and inadvertently empowered the working classes. Many centuries before socialism took root in the European consciousness, the people of Britain expressed values and political ideologies that remarkably resembled class conflict theory. One manuscript of the Chronicles of Jean Froissart from 1483 describes the peasants as “too severely oppressed,” and complained that their lords “treated them as beasts,” (Chronicles of Jean Froissart (1483). The awakening of a collective consciousness among the peasant class perhaps seemed sudden to Richard II, who was only fourteen at the time of the rebellion. Yet the trouble had been brewing for decades, as “between 1377 and 1381, a number of taxes were levied to finance government spending,” (“Peasants' Revolt (death of Wat Tyler),” n.d.). Rather than take steps to avoid class conflict, Richard II and his chief advisors made no changes in their approach and continued to levy taxes on agricultural workers, even attempting to establish a fixed minimum wage after the plague had ended (“Peasants’ Revolt,” n.d.). According to what was penned in the Chronicles of Jean Froissart (1483) regarding the manner by which the monarchy handled brewing labor disputes:...

1). Had the Plantagenet monarchy cultivated the foresight to recognize shifting social and economic realities even before the Plague hit, then it is highly possible that the peasants’ revolt could have been avoided.
A Crack in the Crown

In addition to the inability of the Plantagent monarchy to foresee the economic, political, and social turbulence before and after the Black Death, another reason the monarchy indirectly caused—or at least failed to prevent—the peasants’ revolt can be traced to generational differences. The young Richard II did actually make concessions to the peasants and promised to meet many of their demands. Although the King reneged on his promises, some historians believe that Richard II actually did sympathize with the peasants (Barker, 2014). If Richard II sided with the peasants, it would have represented a clear break with the family’s overall position on how to handle the revolt, and more importantly, how to retain power and pass through its self-serving economic reforms. Moreover, trouble had already been brewing in London prior to the peasants’ revolt of 1381. As Dobson (1983) points out, Richard II “inherited the crown of England from his grandfather under the worst of circumstances,” referring in part to the Plague but even more so to the Hundred Years War—particularly the most heated battles taking place on English soil between 1369 and 1389: England’s “most serious military challenge” to date (p. 91). Richard was far too young to address the complexities of military strategy effectively without counsel, and counsel he received from those who were stuck firmly in the past. Older generations of rulers in the Plantagenet family lacked the creative thinking skills to resolve their problems in a progressive manner; the King might have been able to do so had he been given a chance.

Ruling in the king’s stead was a counsel that was elected by common law that consisted of an odd motley of persons including bishops, earls, and even a civil lawyer (Dobson, 1983). Clearly, the Plantagenet monarchy itself lacked the power and fortitude it needed to manage the war with the French, which is why the peasants’ revolt arrived on its clock. War was also a costly affair, which is why the monarchy—and the governing counsel that actually made the decisions that led to the peasants’ revolt—passed the taxes onto the people. When Wat Tyler and the laborers from Kent and Essex arrived in…