I appreciate the comments, guys, but don't hold your breath. I would still love to write a TL, but I don't do stuff like this by half-measures. If I were to write a TL I would want to make it ridiculously detailed, and I would want it all to be pretty much written and completed (at least in note form) before I wrote my first chapter. When I was doing my research I found that I was spending ages just trying to decide things like what local government would look 300 years down the line and what instruments would be used to pass instructions on the battlefield, and what costumes would be worn by those musicians. I spent about a week trying to utterly rewrite the book on military tactics. After about 6 weeks I just burned myself out.
I'll bear your kind wishes in mind in future but honestly a TL is mammoth project for me to be working on, and it'll be some time before I get the energy needed to launch into it again.
Anyway, I don't want to just post about me so here's an answer to the question at hand.
I'm not so sure about this. Peasant rebellions didn't work that way. It was, in this era, deeply ingrained in the peasants of most of Europe that society needed Kings to rule and that the average subject was simply not gifted with the ability to handle government themselves. Sure, Parliament often tried to force its way in, claiming that it could make decisions too, but only a couple of years before Henry IV died he decided to humour them when they got too aggressive and simply stepped back from all government and told Parliament "alright, tell me what to do", taking a careful wager that they would find things harder than they expected. Within months he was proven completely correct, Parliament found itself dealing with all the problems he had been grappling with but with Henry giving them complete jurisdiction they could no longer blame him when things went wrong, and they just fell apart. Within the year they essentially went back on bended knee and admitted that they had been wrong to think that they could do his job, and after that Parliament was a lot more supplicant for a while (though they did agitate over some other things for a while).
But that was Parliament, and Parliament in this era were all gentry, who had their own social ambitions and so on, and who would never associate with the peasantry. To the peasants, the problem was that there were so many rich nobles who did no work but hung on the King's coat tails giving him advise. Even if it was clearly not true, the peasants were too afraid to blame the King - let's not forget that the Catholic church taught them every Sunday that the King was appointed by God and to go against his word was tantamount to heresy - and only ever sought to use the nobles as scapegoats. Most of the time all they actually rioted over was a single tax - and tax was technically the fault of Parliament, not the King - and so their demands were little more than "let us not pay this year".
Even the most left-wing idealist in this era basically envisages the perfect society as one in which the cities were abolished and every citizen in the country was of equal status, all working in farming and other village vocations, with the King a wise and generous man who managed the business side of the country so that the common man could live his life in peace. There was never going to be a revolution to kill the King and create a republic, not in the 1400s.
I'll bear your kind wishes in mind in future but honestly a TL is mammoth project for me to be working on, and it'll be some time before I get the energy needed to launch into it again.
Anyway, I don't want to just post about me so here's an answer to the question at hand.
here is a possible scenario, England gains France, but loses England
There is a second, more serious peasant's revolt and England becomes a republic.
This can be done if French once again becomes the language of the courts.
I'm not so sure about this. Peasant rebellions didn't work that way. It was, in this era, deeply ingrained in the peasants of most of Europe that society needed Kings to rule and that the average subject was simply not gifted with the ability to handle government themselves. Sure, Parliament often tried to force its way in, claiming that it could make decisions too, but only a couple of years before Henry IV died he decided to humour them when they got too aggressive and simply stepped back from all government and told Parliament "alright, tell me what to do", taking a careful wager that they would find things harder than they expected. Within months he was proven completely correct, Parliament found itself dealing with all the problems he had been grappling with but with Henry giving them complete jurisdiction they could no longer blame him when things went wrong, and they just fell apart. Within the year they essentially went back on bended knee and admitted that they had been wrong to think that they could do his job, and after that Parliament was a lot more supplicant for a while (though they did agitate over some other things for a while).
But that was Parliament, and Parliament in this era were all gentry, who had their own social ambitions and so on, and who would never associate with the peasantry. To the peasants, the problem was that there were so many rich nobles who did no work but hung on the King's coat tails giving him advise. Even if it was clearly not true, the peasants were too afraid to blame the King - let's not forget that the Catholic church taught them every Sunday that the King was appointed by God and to go against his word was tantamount to heresy - and only ever sought to use the nobles as scapegoats. Most of the time all they actually rioted over was a single tax - and tax was technically the fault of Parliament, not the King - and so their demands were little more than "let us not pay this year".
Even the most left-wing idealist in this era basically envisages the perfect society as one in which the cities were abolished and every citizen in the country was of equal status, all working in farming and other village vocations, with the King a wise and generous man who managed the business side of the country so that the common man could live his life in peace. There was never going to be a revolution to kill the King and create a republic, not in the 1400s.