It’s one of those historic events that still, 630 years on, resonate with modern times and make your blood run cold.
In 1381 the so-called “Peasant’s Revolt” led by Wat Tyler massed tens of thousands of poor people protesting the new “Poll Tax” which, like our GST, made poor people pay as much tax as rich people. And against the essentially slavery conditions many of them worked under.
Richard II, then just a teenager, agreed in one meeting to a number of things the protesters wanted. Then in a second meeting the Mayor of London treacherously stabbed Wat Tyler during further negotiations. Tyler rode off, the king led the others into a trap and they were then dispersed. Tyler was dragged out of hospital and beheaded.
Then as Peter Ackroyd* recounts “A few days later Richard revoked the charter of emancipation [freedom of slaves, fair rent for land, punishment of the poll tax gatherers] he had granted to the crowd at Mile End, on the ground that it had been extorted from him by violence. He travelled to Essex in order to observe the aftermath of the now extinguished revolt. A group of villagers there asked him to remain faithful to the pledges he had made them a few days before.
His reply was:
“You wretches are detestable both on land and on sea. You seek equality with the lords, but you are unworthy to live. Give this message to your fellows: rustics you are, and rustics you will always be. You will remain in bondage, not as before, but incomparably harsher. For as long as we live we will strive to suppress you, and your misery will be an example to prosperity.”
A few months later “A parliament was called … where it was proposed that the state of bondage known as villeinage should be abolished.The Lords and Commons, their vital interests as landlords at stake, unanimously voted against any such action.” The leaders of the rebels were rounded up and beheaded (John Ball, as a major leader with Tyler, being hung drawn and quartered).
So a sad story. Just one of many attempts all over the world, through the centuries, to improve the lot of ordinary people, which has been met with brutal repression. And what struck me, reading the king’s words again, was that they could be used, unchanged, by billionaires and corporate leaders around the world today. And by their political front men (and women – not hard to imagine Thatcher making such a speech to the coal miners for example). The power relationships, and attitudes, in spite of centuries of “democratic advance”, remain unchanged in 2012, as seen in the Republican front-runners, the Cameron UK Government, the Australian Opposition.
* Peter Ackroyd 2011 “The History of England vol 1 Foundation” Macmillan, London
How could we ever think of becoming a Republic, when Monarchy has such a proud record?
Reading Ackroyd on these bastards again really makes you wonder about the mentality of monarchists. Really, there is so much good in this line of evil morons – why wouldn’t you be happy with DNA as basis for being head of country?
Further reading ‘ A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court ‘ Mark Twain
Why is it that this keeps on happening, century after century of exploitation. Yet it persists. Must have something going for it, probably money, gratuitous sex laid on, loads of posh food, a mansion or two, maids. It has a sort of crepuscular vitality, necrotic, the sweet smell of success.
The methodologies used to counter this phenomenon are limited in their scope, protestation has limited scope, lawyers can be bought, the disease moves on, disguises itself, turns up in a new, yet familiar forms.
Time for new methodologies. We don’t want another boring, moralising priesthood, like judges, they can be bought. I vote we all declare ourselves autonomous entities, indie nations like indie music publishers, plant our victory gardens, make our own music and sublimate.
Make yer own rules, I don’t care.
I think your opening question, Barrie, is answered by your closing comment: “Make yer own rules, I don’t care.”
Humankind’s inhumanity to humankind keeps on happening because we all want to live by our own rules; we want what we want and hang the rest. Without some kind of “transformation”, our penchant toward selfishness and greed results in centuries more of exploitation.
Yeah, you’re right Eric, a flip ending comment comes back to bite me. So really its human nature, to gather in not only what you need to sustain life but to gather in a lot more besides, because ‘why not?’
Erudite comments as usual David. Not always easy to think of further parallels between the times in which we live and those of 1300s England though. The means by which the wealthy/powerful maintain their positions of influence is one of the major and most obvious differences. The preposterous notion of “Howard’s battlers” for example, could only exist where there is a constant stream of doublespeak from the mass media.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
["The divine right of kings or divine-right theory of kingship is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does hold, however, that the king is subject to the Church and the Pope although completely irreproachable in other ways. But according to this doctrine in its strong form, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act"]
In a discussion of monarchy vs democracy this concept was raised.
Whilst not adhered to today, at least not so blatantly, the undue ‘fan/worship’ of monarchial pin ups [think Di and the current lad] by the obsequious media, the obsession with their clothes, loves, adventures, whatever gives the monarchy a prominence and attention that is anachronistic and is derived from the ‘divine right’.
Its interesting to note that wiki brings out the fundamental anti-democratic essence of monarchism and that the early caveats on that unbridled power came from the church.
I’m reasonably confident that many of our resident monarchists here in Oz would agree with the principles of the divine right, pehaps nor tacitly or openly expressed, but secretly in their hearts and implicit in their words.
My strong feeling is that our monarchists do firmly believe in divine right and would be happily touched for scrofula if they had it.