Sources 2

1
Sources 23 -Question 2
Starter Match the people to the description.
Focus

• Read the Sources
• Answer question 2

Check the words
groceries insanely Lollards commons
2
Question 2

• Does the evidence of sources 2 and 3 support the
  evidence of source 1 about how the peasants got
  into the tower?
• (6 marks)

3
Smithfields, King meets peasants 2nd time Wat
Tyler killed (15/06/1381).
Mile End, King meets peasants 1st time
(14/06/1381)
Tower Hill
Highbury, 4 miles north, near todays Emirates
Tower of London
4

• What evidence does Source 1 have?
• What evidence does Source 2 have?
• How else do Sources 1 and 2 agree?
• Do Sources 1 and 2 differ?
• Who source 2 written by? Biased?
• What evidence does Source 3 have?
• How else do Sources 1 and 3 agree?
• Do Sources 1 and 3 differ?
• Who source 3 written by? Biased?
• Did peasants do what King asked? Why not?
• Who written by? Biased?
• Does bias make a source more or less useful?
• Conclusion

• Peasants entry resisted?
• Permission to enter the Tower?
• Why?
• Clear?
• What did the Peasants want from the Tower?

5

• S1 says K let them in.
• S2 says K forced to hand over Archbishop on
  Tower, K allowed rebels to enter the Tower.
• S12 agree
• Some peasants being at Mile End
• peasants after Archbishop and he was in Tower.
• Peasants entry not resisted
• S12
• S1 says Arch in Chapel saying mass when peasants
  took him, S2 says Archbishop was hidden
• S2 not mention condition on peasants to Ks
  permission
• S2 not mention death of Archbishop
• S2 mentions 600 soldiers and 600 archers in Tower
  who did nothing
• S2 mentions peasants also entering the rooms of
  the Royal Family
• S2 mentions Ks position, unsure what to do for
  the best, otherwise he knew he would have been
  killed himself
• S2 written by Thomas Walsingham, anti-Lollard.
  Describes peasants insanely foolish, reports
  their disrespectful and rude in taking kings
  groceries, inferior, disrespct in entering
  royal rooms, and insult knights by stroking their
  beards ith filthy sticks and common and dirty
  hands
• S2 overtly critical of King and his army. Not
  actually say Kings decided to hand over
  archbishop, makes it seem fault of insanely
  foolish peasants. How can they be held
  responsible for the Lings actions. But by saying
  they are not actually blaming the king. Also
  criticises kings soldiers amaxingly peeared
  more dead than living dead to all memories of
  brave military deeds and remembrance of previous
  glory. (Kings father was a great knight Black
  Prince)

6

• S3 less clear whether K allowed peasants in, says
  K was granting their requests but not specify
  whether one was to hand over Archbishop.
• Peasants who entered T were separate band from
  the ones negotiating with the King over mile away
  in Mile End.
• S13 agree
• Some peasants being at Mile End
• peasants after Archbishop and he was in Tower.
• Peasants entry not resisted
• Execution of Sudbury and Hales on Tower Hill
• S3 differs from S1
• mentions plan of K negotiate with peasants to
  save Archbishop and others
• City not oppose peasants supported them?
  Frightened? King not rely on them.
• Mentions soldiers in Tower (150-180)
• S2 written by Henry Knighton, Lord Chief
  Justice?, close connections with King and his
  family.
• Pro-King and his Government, describes Sudbury
  and Hales as martyrs, May have wanted to cover up
  what exactly happened, be economic with the
  truth?
• Cover over K. went to Mile End to get himself out
  of the Tower?
• Anti-peasant (mouths of wolves, pathetic,
  threatening words, disorderly shouts)
• Conclusion

7
Target Cross referencing and evaluation of
Sources   Level 1 Simple statements making
straightforward links between sources, e.g. none
of them say exactly how the peasants got
in. (13) Level 2 Developed
statements making good links, supported by
relevant information from source, e.g. all the
sources mention the King making promises to the
peasants. (46) Level 3 Developed
explanation supported by selected knowledge to
show how far sources support each other. Students
point out that source 2 is unambiguous whilst the
other two make ambiguous statements about the
King granting certain liberties to the
peasants. (78)
8
Plan for question 2 Source 1 says, they could go
through all the realm of England . Because of
this announcement Watt Tyghler and the peasants
took their way to the Tower. Source 2 says, so
insanely foolish as to force the King to hand
over to them the Archbishop. So the King
allowed the rebels to enter the Tower Source 3
says, the King was granting their
requests, all without the use of any aggression
or force.
9
Paragraph 1 Explain what you learned about how
the peasants got into the Tower from reading
source 2 so insanely foolish as to force the
King to hand over to them the Archbishop. the
King, unsure of what to do for the best, allowed
the rebels to enter the Tower It clearly says
the king let them in.

• Paragraph 2
• Explain whether source 2 supports what source 1
  said at all.
• It does agree that the King said they could go
  where they wanted.
• Source 2 makes the king look more guilty than
  Source 1
• So now we have two sources that tend to make the
  king responsible for the peasants getting into
  the Tower.

Paragraph 3 Explain what Source 3 tells us about
how the peasants got into the Tower. all without
the use of any aggression or force, sword or any
arrow. Explain that this is similar to Source 1
because in Source 1 they did not have to battle
to get in because the King told them they could
go there. Also source 3 tells us there were 150
knights in the Tower who did nothing. Why would
skilled knights do nothing unless they had been
given orders just to let the peasants past?
Another source that makes the way the peasants
got in seem suspicious.
Note Source 3 was good friend of the King so he
may have been trying to cover up for what the
King seems to have done.