I bet you've been reading the following great write up from u/J-Force ;-)

Before I delve into the actual party Londoners threw for Richard II, I'll briefly summarize why it didn't surprise me that they did.

Anyone who's familiar with 14th and 15th century chronicles covering the history of France and England knows that cities revolted every 20 to 40 years. Flemish historians have probably analysed it the best. City dwellers had their own memory of the past, their own oral and written historiography at the time. They remembered their priviledges. They remembered their grudges. They remembered why they fought in the past and why they had to fight again. Cities like Ghent and Bruges where revolting in cycles and it took Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire to literally burn down the city he was born in--namely, Ghent--for it to stop. Flemish historians are not very found of him. To this day. Do not go to a history lecture at the University of Ghent to praise Charles V! You WILL be ill-received.

The Flemish cities make up for a great and unique case study. They all shared a common lord, the count of Flanders, who was superseded by a suzerain: the king of France. Many a time they fought among themselves but more often than not they would unite against their lord and when they felt they couldn't win, they'd call for the king's help. When they didn't like the king's policy, they turned to their count. That's how they managed to acquire some political autonomy though they never reached the independance of northern Italian cities like Venice or Florence. Of course, they tried to pull that move against Charles V in the early 16th century but the party was over at that point. Charles V was no mere count of Flanders. He was also both an emperor and a king! The Flemish cities revolted to no avail.

In contrast, cities of Picardy all depended from various lords and never united into a league like the Flemish cities did. Most French cities were actually quite isolated from each other. Yet they revolted or rebelled often. During the Hundred Years' War it commonly found its expression through treason. As I've stated before, cities held several seats of power and it was just sometimes too easy to invite you allies--or your lord's enemies--within the walls. Straight up revolts could also occur when a city was recovered and priviledges were lost or rewritten.

PRIVILEDGES were everything to citydwellers. A medieval city was defined by the priviledges of its people. Those were written down into charters and those charters were kept in very safe locations such as belfries which bells rang with the sound of freedom. "L'air de la ville rend libre" (the air of a city makes you free) as the French saying goes. It came down to the fact that every guild had its own charter and that you just COULDN'T sue or condemn people from different guilds the same way. The prevot of Paris tried to condemn university members as he would have done any random citizen and it led to an open revolt with the full backing of the Church in favour of the university. Legally speaking, cities where a nightmare once translated into judicial courts.

Lords and people of power had to play by the rules of the many charters a city could hold to keep the peace. However, cities had been founded during the 12th and 13th century because they had proven to be lucrative. Lords were actually expecting revenue from the cities within their holds. Revenue was especially secured when a city had been granted the priviledge of "staple right" for one or other resource. A staple right meant that a city could coerce any merchant to stop within its walls for a set amount of days to put his stock to sale. Are you trying to go through Bruges without selling your textile goods on your way to London? Are you mad? Na-hah. No can't do! The market place is this way. Here's where you'll put your stall and sell your goods for the next fifteen days.

Staple rights were often disputed among cities and lords often granted those rights to more agreeable cities when faced with disgruntled subjects. It led to open wars, more revolts and drama. Etc.

HOWEVER.

As stated before, Flemish cities (and all French and English cities for that matter) never gained their full-on independance. It means, on the long run, that their lords always found some way or other to make them pay--either literally or for their rebellious behaviour. They weren't really original or subtle about it. They marched on with an army full of feudal lords and mercenaries greedy for loot and plunder. Cities held many treasures and it wasn't too hard to convince the nobility to sack one or two of them.