Warwick the Kingmaker: Politics, Power and Fame during the War of the Roses

by A.J. Pollard

Warwick the Kingmaker was a fifteenth-century celebrity; a military hero, self-publicist and populist. For twelve years he was the arbiter of English politics, not hesitating to set up and put down kings. In the dominant strand of recent English historical writing, Warwick is condemned as a man who hindered the development of the modern state; in earlier centuries he was admired as an exemplar of true nobility who defied the centralising tendencies of the crown. A. J. Pollard offers a fresh assessment, to which neither approach is entirely appropriate, of the man whose nickname has become synonymous with power broking.

Genres: British Literature, History, Nonfiction

272 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2007

About the author

Anthony James Pollard (born 1941) is a British medieval historian, specialising in North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses. He is considered a leading authority on the field.

Reviews

[David Santiuste · Rating 5 out of 5]

Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, was one of medieval England’s most fascinating and controversial personalities. This book offers a reassessment of Warwick’s career, considering various aspects of Warwick’s life; these include (among others) his personal role in the high politics of the period, the administration of his estates and his experiences as a soldier.

The author, A.J. Pollard, makes skilful use of primary sources and modern research. This book provides a wealth of insights into the nature of fifteenth-century politics and society (and their subsequent interpretation by later historians), and Pollard is careful and considered in his judgements. That said, he has no doubts about the force of Warwick’s personality, ultimately characterising the earl as a ‘great gleaming star’.

This is a scholarly work, but it is exceptionally clearly written, and the book’s elegant structure helps to make it more accessible. The Earl of Warwick will continue to divide opinion, but this fine study does full justice to his colourful career. This is essential reading for anybody with a serious interest in late medieval English history.

[Kay Adelin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was an excellent overview and read for anyone looking to learn more about Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, better known as the Kingmaker. If one isn’t much interested in him or the time period of the Wars of the Roses in general, this biography may bore them, as it is definitely written in essay, narrative form. But I personally enjoyed it, and liked the author’s ability to challenge the status quo (although not necessarily say they’re wrong) about Warwick, especially in light of the cultural change of viewing him as a great chivalric hero from the medieval and early modern era to the arrogant, power-hungry view of him in the “enlightenment” age.

I scribbled several of my key thoughts down while reading this book, which are listed below.

- It is interesting to know that when children were betrothed, at least in the case of Richard Neville and Anne Beauchamp, apparently the girl’s parents would raise the boy. In hindsight, this was probably a good choice, since Richard Neville DID end up becoming the Earl of Warwick upon his brother-in-law (and subsequently his niece’s) deaths.
- The foreign policy positions of Warwick and Edward IV and their differences are both quite striking. I still think Warwick’s approach was smarter and may well have established the Yorkist line certainly for much longer than it was, but of course we must have a love besotted Edward allowing his wife’s family to dictate everything to him. (Okay maybe he wasn’t besotted but that’s the mildest word I can think of to describe him.)
- Starting on Part 2 about Warwick’s finances. One must look at him financially as an organization due to his massive lands and multiple roles. Based on some of the guesstiments, it appears Warwick paid out of pocket for several of England’s defenses. Yet another reason I consider Edward IV’s later treatment of him to be ungrateful.
Also the NAmEs… Warwick, his father, and his father-in-law were earls named Richard. Gets convoluted fast.
- It’s interesting to consider Warwick as an earl rather than a military man. Perhaps due to his scattered and vast interests and other’s reliance on his military power, Warwick couldn’t be as successful a lord as he was a warrior. Perhaps he wasn’t the best at diplomacy and ruling; or perhaps he just couldn’t be because he had no time to focus on his own lands. Whatever the case, his lordship was his weakness.
- It seems like Warwick’s real downfall was the fact that he became so powerful and influential, that he just couldn’t handle it anymore. Not on a personal level, but on a business and professional one—he couldn’t keep an eye on everything going on, relying on retainers, and when the loyalty of those retainers could be turned, it created huge issues.
- The Calais chapter was quite interesting, from challenging the perspective of Warwick’s attacks in the channel being piracy, to wondering what game Lord Wenlock was playing in 1370/71. And of course, I enjoyed hearing about Exeter being too frightened to attack Warwick in the channel in 1360 due to his naval reputation.
- Interesting to note that the stereotype of Warwick being nothing but a selfish, ambitious person who just wanted to control Edward IV may’ve been propaganda in order to suppress his support of the common people speaking out and getting involved in politics. (Even if he did use that to his advantage—he was one of the few political elites who stood up for the people in that way, at least.)
- One of the most intriguing elements in this book is the concept that Sir Thomas Malory, author of Le Morte d’Arthur, might have been hinting at, at least in some ways, the turmoil and political unrest of his day. This Thomas Malory is widely believed to be Thomas Malory of Newcastle, who actually served under Warwick in several campaigns, but who was also imprisoned under Edward IV and through the Readeption, so apparently whatever he did, neither Warwick or Edward wanted to release or pardon him.
But it’s quite unlikely to me that Malory wouldn’t have hinted at the political turmoil in his day somewhat in his manuscript, especially considering the striking similarities between the Fall of Camelot and Arthur’s death and the events of the Wars of the Roses to that point. Another compelling reason is he wrote the manuscript between 1469-1470, in the midst of much political turmoil, of which Warwick was the clear leader. It’s hard to imagine Malory wouldn’t have remarked in his own way on these events in his manuscript.
The author states that he believes if Malory DID hint at the political turmoil and players in his work, he believed that Malory meant for Arthur to represent the Lancastrian cause, Guinevere, England, Mordred, York, and Lancelot, the flower of chivalry, Warwick himself. This suggestion is quite believable since several terms Malory uses to refer to Lancelot, other chroniclers actually used before to describe Warwick.

In all, I quite enjoyed this read. It gave the most in-depth overview of Warwick I have read, and the author seemed quite fair in his judgments on him, backing up his thoughts with logical reasoning and contemporary accounts of the man and his politics, power, and fame.

[Nathan Albright · Rating 5 out of 5]

I must admit that although I am a student of the Wars of the Roses, that I am not all that aware of the larger career of the Earl of Warwick, whose role as the kingmaker between 1456 and 1471 and his death at the battle of Barnet is justly famous.  And this book does a really good job at presenting that larger context in several ways.  I was pleasantly surprised and impressed by the way that the author looked at the family history and marriage ties of Warwick and other members of the Neville and Beauchamp families within the nexus of the aristocratic elite of the time and also looked at the life and career and worldview of Warwick in other ways as well.  This book gave the reader a good reason to think more seriously about Warwick as a harbinger of future changes in warfare and politics, and that was deeply interesting to me.  As someone who is not a particular partisan in the Wars of the Roses, I found that the author pleasingly took seriously Warwick's claims to desire the best interests of the commons, even if that was (and is) an unusual stance for elite leaders to make.

This book is a bit more than 200 pages long and it is divided into three sections and eleven chapters.  The book begins with illustrations, a preface, abbreviations, and introduction that show the author to have rejected the study of Warwick as a doctoral dissertation subject before returning to it here.  After that the first four chapters of the book look at the life of Warwick from the point of view of his political positions and position within the English aristocracy (I), with a look at his early life as a premier earl from 1428-55 (1), his role as a key lieutenant for the Duke of York from 1455-60 (2), his massive influence as England's premier aristocrat in power from 1460-65 (3), and his position as an uncomfortable "third king" from 1465 to his death in battle in 1471 (4).  After that the author spends four chapters looking at Warwick's exercise of power (II) in such areas as his estates and finances (5), the question of lordship and loyalty in East Anglia and the West Midlands (6) as well as the North (7), and his position in Calais and as Lord Admiral (8).  After that the author finishes the book with a look at the relationship between Warwick and fame (III) in his dual role as the idol of the multitude (9) and as an aristocratic exemplar of the chivalric code (10), after which the author concludes (11) with appendices that discuss attempts on the Earl's life (i) as well as some problems of dating (ii), as well as the usual notes, bibliography, and index.

Ultimately, this book did a good job at showing how it was a leader who was moderately talented but by no means a military genius was able to be a kingmaker.  The author is able to effectively blend Parliamentary records and broadsides and versions of the Mirror of Magistrates along with the fantastic Paston letters to make a coherent picture of Warwick as a leader and as a man, even as the author openly admits that there are many gaps to his knowledge and also many ways in which he was unable to project power in all of England to the level that he wanted to to effectively mobilize armies on on his behalf.  If Warwick was by no means a perfect leader, his attempt to blend aristocratic appeals to himself as chivalrous, concessions to the barbarous times with a certain degree of ferocity that would make him a serial killer in contemporary standards, and also an early example of a populist leader as well as an innovator in English generalship through leading his troops on horseback so as to maintain a broader view of the battlefield all make him a compelling person to study even apart from his considerable importance as the wealthiest and most overmighty of subjects during his adult life.

[Alec Mulinder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is the best assessment of Warwick I have read. The book is actually quite light on the political history of the crucial years 1453-64, I was expecting more.