Yesterday Anton Howes analysed England's century of authoritarian oligarchy. The Parliament was then held by landholding agricultural interests, "lords" and "nobles" - also bishops. They (mostly Norman) had been able to exploit a low-class (Saxon) peasantry. Then this miserable population got culled, by fleas. The survivors swiftly learnt the upside: they could bargain for higher wages.
The nobles reacted: by wage controls. In England (and Norway) the nobles further introduced the Letter Testimonial (in excellent Norman legalese). Howes equates the Letter to a Chinese hukou passport: the villein (serf) didn't get to move from his lord's manor to some better-paying lord's, or to repopulate those cities.
I don't know that Howes says this, but the fourteenth-century power-grab by the aristos made critical that aristos stay aristo. For awhile they could still gain lands and booty in France, thank you Henry V. But after the early 1400s that didn't last. I suspect the Wars Of The Roses resulted, as lords fought lords.
This all started under Edward III. "Ēadweard" is a Saxon name. One wonders if he were wiser to have held himself as the King of the English, as to revisit the nobles' privileges from the Great Charter.