Opposing the king in later medieval England

Opposing the king was anathema in later medieval England. To his subjects, the king was lord and master as well as divinely ordained, and so obedience to him was both personal and existential. Those who opposed the king questioned the whole social order and also committed an act of personal betrayal. As ideas about sovereignty developed in the 13th and 14th centuries, opposition came to be defined as treason and the consequences, both for the rebellious individual and his family and hereditary, became acute. Nonetheless some kings ruled badly, and subjects were left with little option, in a practical world, but to resist. How was this resistance rationalised and justified? What form did opposition take – in the internecine politics of the reigns of Edward II, Richard II and the Lancastrian kings? And what were the political results of such opposition – for ruler, for ruled and for the realm?