Talk:Peasants' Revolt

message: :The third poll tax, unlike the two earlier, was not levied on a flat rate basis (as in 1377) nor according to schedule (as in 1379), but in a manner that appeared more arbitrary and hence unfair. 
Can someone expand on this? --Jim Henry | Talk 21:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details on how third poll tax differed from earlier ones? 

message: *The Chronicles of Froissart, Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library "I will speak thereof as it was done, as I was informed, and of the incidents thereof. There was an usage in England, and yet is in divers countries, that the noblemen hath great franchise over the commons and keepeth them in servage, that is to say, their tenants ought by custom to labour the lords' lands, to gather and bring home their corns, and some to thresh and to fan, and by servage to make their hay and to hew their wood and bring it home. All these things they ought to do by servage, and there be more of these people in England than in any other realm. Thus the noblemen and prelates are served by them, and especially in the county of Kent, Essex, Sussex and Bedford. These unhappy people of these said countries began to stir, because they said they were kept in great servage, and in the beginning of the world, they said, there were no bondmen, wherefore they maintained that none ought to be bond"	+	*"Wat Tyler's Rebellion", from The Chronicles of Froissart, , pp 61-63 includes John Ball's speech.
-	 	+	*"King Richard punishes the rebels in Kent" from The Chronicles of Froissart, edited by Steve Muhlberger, Nipissing University.
-	*John Ball's speech "Ah, ye good people, the matters goeth not well to pass in England, nor shall not do till everything be common, and that there be no villains nor gentlemen, but that we may be all united together, and that the lords be no greater masters than we be. What have we deserved, or why should we be kept thus in servitude? We be all come from one father and one mother, Adam and Eve: whereby can they say or show that they be greater lords than we be, saving but they cause us to win and labour for that which they spend? They are clothed in velvet and camlet furred with grise, and we be vestured with poor cloth: they have their wines, spices and good bread, and we have the rye, the bran and the straw, and drink water: they dwell in fair houses, and we have the pain and travail, rain and wind in the fields; and by that that comes from our labours they keep and maintain their estates: we are called their bondmen, and unless we readily do them service, we are beaten; and we have no sovereign to whom we may complain, nor will hear us nor do us right. Let us go to the king, he is young, and shew him what servitude we be in, and show him how we will have it otherwise, or else we will provide us some remedy; and if we go together, all manner of people that be now in any bondage will follow us with the intent to be made free; and when the king sees us, we shall have some remedy, either by fairness or otherwise."	+	
-	 	+	
-	*The End of the Revolt "After the executions of Tyler, Jack Straw, John Ball, William Lister, Walker and several others at London, the people being appeased, the king resolved to visit his bailiwicks, castlewicks, and stewardships, in order to punish the wicked and to recover the letters of pardon which had been forced from him, as well as to place the realm in its proper situation. The king issued a secret summons for a certain number of men at arms to assemble at a fixed place, on a particular day, which was done. They amounted to five hundred spears and as many archers. When they were thus assembled, the king set out from London, attended only by his household, and took the road to Kent, for in that quarter the rebellion had first broken out. These men at arms followed the king, but did not accompany him. The king entered the county of Kent, and came to a village called Comprinke, when he had the mayor and all the men of the village called before him. On their being assembled in an open space, the king ordered one of his council to remonstrate with them, how much they had erred against him, and that they had nearly thrown England into desolation and ruin; and because this mischief must have had some advisers who had encouraged them in their wickedness, and it must be supposed that all were not equally guilty, it was better that the ringleaders should suffer than the whole; his majesty demanded that those should be pointed out who had been so culpable, under pain of incurring his indignation for ever, and being considered as traitors. When those present heard this harangue, and saw that the innocent might escape by pointing out the guilty, they looked at each other, and then said: "My lord, here is one by whom this town was first put into confusion and excited to rise." He was immediately seized and hanged; as were seven others. The letters patent which had been granted were demanded back: when they were given up, the king's officers tore them in pieces before their eyes, and cast them away, and then said, -- "We command all ye who are here assembled, in the kings' name, and under pain of death, to depart, every one peaceably to his own home; and that you never rebel more against the king, nor against his ministers. By the punishment that has been inflicted, your former evil deeds are pardoned." The people cried out with one voice, "God bless the king and his good council." They acted in the same manner ...in the different part of England where the people had rebelled; so that upwards of fifteen hundred were beheaded or hanged. " WAS 4.250 21:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Might want to get into how this and other revolts up through the reformation affected political thought then and since. It;s all quite important to marxist historiography. Dan Knauss
Popular revolt in late medieval Europe, a more general article, though not covering that aspect yet. --Stbalbach 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: need expansion

message: I reverted the recent additions. They are poorly written for one and I don't think really improved what is here. Also the social factors about the black death etc are general to all revolts and discussed in the popular uprising article. -- Stbalbach 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent additions 

message: Hi. we have had about 5 or 6 unhelpful edits in the last hour or so, anyone think we should go for semi-protection of this article? Thanks! ACBestMy Contributions 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  semi-protection needed? 

message: For a such a significant event in history, there really is more that could be said about this. Mrmoocow 10:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I was reviewing this for Version 0.7; I think it needs some work & more content before it's ready, though it's certainly getting there. Walkerma 03:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for expansion 

message: The BBC web site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/voices/voices_revolt.shtml) says "The Peasants' Revolt began in the Essex village of Fobbing in May 1381. It started with the arrival of a royal tax commissioner, John Bampton, enquiring into evasion of the new poll-tax. As a JP and former sheriff of Essex, Bampton was typical of the local notables against whom the risings were directed. Supported by men from nearby villages the rebellion had begun." The current article gives roughly the same events, but places them in Brentwood. Does anyone have access to a good source that can help? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brentwood or Fobbing? 

message: The Poll Tax article says "The poll tax was essentially a lay subsidy (a tax on the movable property of most of the population) to help fund war. It had first been levied in 1275 and continued, under different names, until the 17th century." Thus, according to Wikipedia, poll taxes continued to be levied after the Peasant's revolt. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The last poll tax? 

message: The term "Peasants' Revolt" is one coined by historians in the nineteenth century and is un unreflective of the variety of rebels. Wat Tyler and John Ball both came from large towns, and townsmen and low clergy were numerously included in the ranks of those rebelling. In Norfolk there is an uncommon example of members of the titled gentry joining in as two knights and an esquire were among those in revolt.
Contemporary commentators refered to to the events as "Tempore Rumoris" or "The time of whispers/rumours". This epithet reflects much more effectively the widespread criticism levelled at governmental activity during the period, and is irrespective of any social distinctions between those taking part and indeed those who may well have passively supported the rebels too.
 - MJC -  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tempore Rumoris 

message: Do you people mean you really don't think this was a slave rebellion??  What will it take? Stars4change (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source that says it was? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, it would probably have taken some slaves rebelling to be a slave rebellion. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Slave rebellion

message: There is little mention of the revolt outside London or post Smithfield.  I've added a section on this and made the briefest of starts on the Norfolk revolt.  There is a lot more to be said and I hope others will take up the challenge of expanding the coverage. Monstrelet (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The revolt outside London

message: Currently the article says in the lead:
This needs a citation as it is not an accurate summary of the body of the text, and is not supported by the economic profile of many of the known participants in the rebellion.  -- PBS (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the end of serfdom 

message: I've given the article an over-haul. I think it now reflects the current literature, and is fully referenced. It will certainly need a copyedit, etc. however, as I'm certain there a range of typos left in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't spotted your typos, but I wonder whether the sentence "At the end of the 20th century there was a surge in historical interest in the Peasants' Revolt, spurred by the contemporary growth of the labour and socialist movements.[275] " should be at the end of the 19th century? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - thanks, and changed! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I've added a reference in to support the identification of two groupings here. The terms "the House of Lords" and "the House of Commons" first come from the 16th century, but aren't typically used to describe the 14th century institutions; the terms are a bit anachronistic for the 14th century, carry a number of assumptions based on later parliamentary practice, and I'd argue you'll typically find historians of the 14th century being quite specific about how they refer to the 14th century versions. There is some variance about whether they are capitalised or not ("the commons" versus "the Commons"), with the latter being more common and more widely used by modern historians, I think. I agree, by the way, that the Commons link should have been more specific to the English parliament. I think this should also have made reference to the clergy, and I've added them in. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lords and Commons... 

message: This article links "Lady Joan" to Joan of England who was an unfortunate princess who died at the age of 14, without issue. The woman who encountered the peasant army was "Joan of Kent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Kent
I don't want to fix it myself because I am afraid I will mess it up. Hopefully someone who is more familiar with the editing process can change this. Thanx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.105.153 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! I've fixed as per your suggestion. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joan of Kent, not Joan of England 

message: Hello! I have some questions about taxation. I can do some mistakes in English, because I`m Russian, please be careful. 
"the poll tax, which was levied at the rate of four pence" - for which period people had to pay that amount? Also, what does "with a deduction for married couples" mean? They didn`t pay, or only one human in couple paid? "his round of taxation proved extremely unpopular but raised £22,000" for which perod?--Schetnikova Anna (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was asked a long time ago, but here is a partial answer. The poll tax was a one-off tax ie each time it was only collected once. If more revenue was needed, a new poll tax was levied. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About taxation 

message: I put this in because I think that the speech's reported text is quite illuminating. I noticed that the article refers to Sumption, who in turn refers to Froissart a lot if you look at his footnotes. Wikidea 17:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual problem with Froissart as a source for this period is that he wasn't there in person, he has clear biases and he does tend to embellish the details (see Jones's commentary on him as a primary source). There are no perfect sources for the revolt, though, so every modern historian I've come across uses a combination. Sumption uses a combination of primary sources for his paragraph on the sermon, including Anonimalle, Walsingham, Knighton and Froissart; he doesn't quote the text used by Macaulay. Dunn describes some of the differences in the chroniclers' accounts of Ball, which gives a sense of the problems of interpreting the sources of this period. The most famous bit of the sermon, "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then a gentleman?" is now known to have been common before Ball used it (see Hilton's description of this background). If you'll allow me a bit of OR (given this is a talk page!) there isn't a commonly agreed text of what Ball actually said, which is why modern specialist historians of this period are so cautious about quoting anything at length (I only know of one historian that has, and that's in a relatively "popular" work, and footnoted as being potentially unreliable). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it matters too much - even if Froissart isn't quoting Ball (and of course he's not), because Froissart was writing in 1385 this makes his account relevant in itself. You've done a great article, but don't be precious about people like me making improvements. I take it that you don't have a better source. (And Sumption, quotes the phrase you do, and attributes it to him.) I leave it to you. Wikidea 18:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Wikidiea. It's not that I think there's a better source - it's rather that I don't believe that current historians think that there is any good source for what Ball actually said (as opposed to the broad themes he put across, where there is consistency across most of the accounts).  Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better source? 

message: It's too long - hit the main points, incorporate the rest into the article's body. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd agree with you; it summarises the totality of the article, its length is in line with the MOS on leads for articles of this size, and all the points are already cited in the main body. Were there bits that caused particular concern? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead should be shortened 

message: It is my understanding that the rebels brought the Hospitaller documents out of "the Temple" on Fleet Street and destroyed the documents, then left the Temple in tact.  In fact, that Temple is still in tact in London today, and is quite famous.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stumpydoo5 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Temple was rebuilt afterwards; at the time, the attackers even took off all the roof tiles. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  the temple...systematically destroyed the buildings 

message: A month ago the image being used to depict the Black Death was removed as it shows leprosy. If the editors of this article would like an alternative image, the one on the right shows victims of the Black Death. While you can't see the symptoms, it might help convey it was a fatal disease with a large death toll. Nev1 (talk) 12:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Very often fatal, but there were some survivors - the pneumonic form of the plague, however, was always fatal at the time (and most of the time today.)50.111.23.144 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: The Black Death

message: The lead image is captioned as representing a meeting on 13 June 1381.  The text has the first such meeting on 14th, and another on 15th. Davidships (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard II meeting rebels 

message: I reverted some edits by  because it removed some of the existing references in the article. In addition, it removed four new sources which might be relevant to the article. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic so I can't assess how good the references are.
It might be better if we discuss things on the talk page. Its good to get an expert on the subject but it might take some getting use to the way wikipedia works. For example, we have seen an example of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. OneProfessor did a good faith bold edit, this was reverted by myself and others and its how time to discusss to find a consensus for what should go in. --Salix alba (talk): 00:17, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of references 

message: There is a line which reads "Word of the revolt reached the King at Windsor Castle on the night of 10 June.[90] He travelled by boat down the River Thames to London the next day, taking up residence in the powerful fortress of the Tower of London for safety, where he was joined by his mother, Archbishop Sudbury, the Lord High Treasurer Sir Robert Hales, the Earls of Arundel, Salisbury and Warwick and several other senior nobles.[94] A delegation, headed by Thomas Brinton, the Bishop of Rochester, was sent out from London to negotiate with the rebels and persuade them to return home.[90]"
notice the various references to "He". I would edit to be correct but I don't know who "He" is.
AirmanEpic (talk)
:I am not clear what the problem is. All references to "he" clearly to refer to the king so far as I can see. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing section in Events->March on the capital 

message: The article contains the sentence:
 The poet John Gower feared England might see an uprising similar to the French Jacquerie revolt of 1358, in which the peasants had risen up against their masters.[61]NOTE 61= Sumption 2009, p. 419
I suggest replacing the existing sentence with:
 The poet John Gower warned against a future revolt in both Mirour de l'Omme and Vox Clamantis. CITE (Wickert 1953 p18-19)
Bibliography  ADD:
 
===Observations on preceding:===
* Perhaps Wickert should be credited via In-text attribution with discovering these two warnings.
* My reason for dating the footnote 1953 is that Wickert original publication was in 1953 in German.  2016 is the publication date of the second edition of Meindl's translation.
* The line numbers in the references to MO and VC may be overly specific and could be deleted (or reformatted).
===Problem with Sumption page 419:===
The principal problem is that quotation from Gower is inappropriate. It is from Confessio Amantis prologue lines 498-501 is:
:“Betwen the men and the godhiede.
:Now forto speke of the comune,
:It is to drede of that fortune 500
:Which hath befalle in sondri londes:”
Excerpt From: John Gower. “Confessio Amantis, or, Tales of the Seven Deadly Sins.” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/ca/book/confessio-amantis-or-tales-of-the-seven-deadly-sins/id498715691?mt=11
Confessio Amantis was probably written after 1381.
I don't know of any allusion to the Jacquerie in Mirour or Vox.
===passage from Sumption:===
The English political community did not imagine that the revolt of Flanders held any lessons for them, any more than the court of France had done. When popular rebellion erupted in their own island, the event took them by surprise. But it did not come out of a clear sky. Most of the economic problems of the countryside ultimately sprang from the drastic depopulation which followed the Black Death: falling
                                     418
                       THE REVOLT OF THE TOWNS 1380-1382.
rents and agricultural prices, accompanied by strong upward pressure on wages. The lords of rural manors responded by systematically enforcing their surviving manorial rights and zealously invoking the Statute of Labourers which had been enacted in the aftermath of the first epidemic in order to limit the wage demands of labourers and restrict their mobility. These measures were only partly effective but they provoked sharp conflicts, sometimes breaking out into physical violence. The shadow of the Jacquerie of 1358 darkened men’s thoughts and fear of revolution became a recurring theme of political discourse. That lugubrious conservative poet John Gower warned that the common people would one day break their bonds, ‘which hath befalle in sondri londes’. France was undoubtedly the chief of the sundry lands that Gower had in mind. He was not alone. After a rash of incidents in the south and west in 1377 the Commons in Richard II's first Parliament reported that peasants were forming sworn associations to oppose the demands of their lords and were openly resisting the bailiffs of the manors. They voiced their fear of rural revolution ‘as happened some time ago in France’, even as they called for stronger measures of repression.8 NOTE8 refers to Froissart.
 
===Gower translation===
Mirour de l'omme  26485-26496 Fisher translation
:It seems to me that lethargy
:has so put the nobility to sleep
:that they do not guard against
:the folly of the common people,
:but permit the nettle to grow
:which is so violent in its nature.
:He who observes the present time
:may soon fear that,
:if God does not give help,
:this impatient nettle
:will very suddenly sting us,
:before it can be brought to justice.
Vox Clamantis V.653-54 Stockton translation
:I believe that in a short time the lords will submit to them,
:unless justice shall have been obtained by means of fear.
Rdmoore6 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gower's Prediction of the Peasants' Revolt 

message: Mirour de l'omme  26485-26496 Fisher translation
:It seems to me that lethargy
:has so put the nobility to sleep
:that they do not guard against
:the folly of the common people,
:but permit the nettle to grow
:which is so violent in its nature.
:He who observes the present time
:may soon fear that,
:if God does not give help,
:this impatient nettle
:will very suddenly sting us,
:before it can be brought to justice.
Vox Clamantis V.653-54 Stockton translation
:I believe that in a short time the lords will submit to them,
:unless justice shall have been obtained by means of fear.
Rdmoore6 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Gower translation

message: The article mentions "derogatory Latin terms such as serviles rustici, servile genus and rusticitas".  I think we need a decent English translation of these.  I gather they are something along the lines of "slave-like rustics", "slave race", and "rustics", but I don't know enough about Latin to navigate the subtleties of meaning. Iapetus (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Latin 

message: "The historian Sylvia Federico, translating Latin court documents from The National Archives, named Johanna Ferrour as the leader of this force that took the castle. Alongside her husband,[140] she is described as "chief perpetrator and leader of rebellious evildoers from Kent".[141] She arrested Sudbury and dragged him to the chopping block, ordering that he be beheaded as well as ordering the death of the treasurer, Robert Hales. It has been speculated that her name does not appear in the work of contemporary chroniclers as they may have felt that a female leader would be perceived as trivialising the revolt.[141] From then onwards, however, comments Marc Boone, women were more regularly accepted in contemporary literature as playing a role in societal violence.[140]"
This paragraph has two sources, one a book in Italian with no page numbers given, and the other a BBC news magazine article. These are not reliable sources for an FA historical article, especially for a subject which has so many reliable sources in English. One comment is quoted as the view of Marc Boone, but he is not the author of the book cited. The citations are also the only ones which do not comply with the standard format for the article. The paragraph deals a topic which appears to be neglected in the article, but if the information is reliable it should be possible to provide sources which are academic and in English, like all the other sources for the article. I think this paragraph as it stands should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources of paragraph. 

message: The article John Brampton is about an archdeacon, but claims to be about the same person as the John Bampton who started the Revolt (and is linked from here). I can't seem to find any sources predating these two articles who make that connection. Can someone find the source which makes the connection between those two, or is this some WP:OR which has since spread outside enwiki to Town and County Magazine, 2018? Fram (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is just someone's assumption. An early and poor version of the John Brampton article at  makes the connection and only cites the Diocese Clergy Lists as a source. It is also interesting that he is not listed in MPs 1386 to 1421 at , although the period 1422 to 1504 is not yet available. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's what I feared. I'll remove the link from this page, and the info from the target page. Of course, if someone finds a good source predating the info here (i.e. pre-2015 or so), then it can be readded! Fram (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it is correct to change John Brampton to a redirect to the clerical article. The one who was involved in the Peasants Revolt is significant and well referenced, whereas the archdeacon is just a name. I think you should revert the redirect and delete the archdeacon, the first two refs and the succession box. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the Peasants' Revolt one called John Bampton (without the R)? Better to create a new article (or, if they are the same, to use John Bampton (theologian) as is already done now). Using the "bRampton" article to contain this information is not helping, I think. Fram (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is definitely not the theologian. He was active much earlier. The usual spelling of all three men seems to be Bampton. I suggest restoring the John Brampton article and moving the name to John Bampton (tax collecter). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Bampton MP = John Brampton, archdeacon? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Any opposition to changing the title to 1381 Peasants' Revolt, to distinguish it from other similar revolts? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Peasants' Revolt (1381)" or "Peasants' Revolt of 1381"? Nathan43 (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take this as no opposition to any title including the year. Wikipedia articles of events normally have dates at the beginning, when applicable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I oppose a change. The current title is used by reliable sources, not the proposed new one. If you want to change it you should make a formal proposal using Template:Requested move. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose the change too. Nathan43 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Most reliable sources use the year in naming the event. More importantly, a disambiguation is needed to differentiate this event from other events which can be described as a peasants' revolt. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at Google Books, few if any use 1381 Peasants' Revolt. The most popular seem to be Peasants' Revolt and Peasants' Revolt of 1381. However, any change would be controversial, and under Wikipedia rules no controversial name change should be made without going through a formal consultation, as I suggested above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to 1381 Peasants' Revolt