I have a few questions regarding chartered cities, if that’s alright. First, how did the populations of the cities break down in terms of class? You’ve said that the people living in one are legally considered burghers, but surely not everyone would be of the middle class. Would many people be working higher income jobs than serfs, and be wealthier on average due to the lack of feudal taxes? Would there be taxes, if slightly lower, for the upkeep of the city? (1/2)

(2/2) As well, would cities have militia or a police force, similar in size, equipment and role to the goldcloaks in King’s Landing? Finally, would burghers be expected to join in military campaigns? If so, would they commonly have better equipment than the average serf due to their greater wealth? Thanks, and sorry about all of the questions.

So, as a legal term (as opposed to a class distinction), burgher originally meant that you are a citizen of the town (burgh means a town, and going further back means a fortified settlement), with the right to reside in the town and enjoy its rights and privileges. The social class of burghers that emerged in the 11th century were the elite of the towns and cities who were leaders of the guilds and who had the status necessary for being a city official. 

In terms of Medieval urban class structures, we don’t have anything like good enough evidence to give detailed population breakdowns – and there’s a lot of social categories that don’t fit well into modern conceptions of class. For example, by the Early Modern period (when we have better statistics), about 20% of the population were servants – do we see these people as part of the poor or working classes, when  being a servant was almost always a time-limited occupation where people in their teens from a range of backgrounds would work as servants until they had enough money set aside to set up their own household? 

Likewise, I’ve seen some Early Modern figures that say that around 27% of the population of London were apprentices  – again, our perspective of these people’s class position depends on how likely they were to make the climb up to journeyman and then master, which would radically alter their class position. Certainly, apprentices would have been seen as better off than unskilled laborers.

In terms of income, yes, city-dwellers tended to have higher wages (and living standards) than rural peasants, but you have to balance that against their significantly worse mortality statistics – living in a medieval or early modern town or city was a recipe for epidemic disease, so lots of people died in the cities. So city living was something of a gamble of higher wages in the short-term vs. increased likelihood of death in the long run? 

There were taxes – burgage taxes for leasing property (and later on, being a voter), murage taxes for building and maintaining walls, pavage taxes for streets, pontage taxes for bridges, and so on. But most of these taxes were property taxes, so if you didn’t own property (or if you were a sub-tenant), you didn’t pay. There were fairly hefty import, export, and other customs duties, which your average laborer would pay indirectly. 

Yes, there were militias, and they did tend to be better trained and equipped, because the towns and cities could support them from public revenue. And if they had enough money, they could even hire a mercenary company.