Warwick

[Misfit]

Good, bad, or a man of his times?

[K.L.]

Like most people from history, Warwick was 'good' in some circumstances and 'bad' in others. He was, like most of us, morally ambiguous. I'm not one to subscribe to the notion we can make people from history fit into a good/evil fairystory paradigm, and have never quite understood why anyone does that. Evidence suggest that plenty do!
As to the 'man of his times', I've seen it argued many times he was 'the last of the barons', a throwback to a more feudal past. I've also seen it argued (and have been known to argue this myself) that he was as much a man of (his) future as of (his) past. There were contemporaries of his who would have foundered in later times, I think Warwick would have prospered. So, yes, a man of his times, for sure. But one with the ability to adapt, should those times change. His role in the readeption shows me this.

[Gillian]

I would not argue with KL, who I know is an expert historian on the Nevilles.
A lot depends on your interpretation of his actions at various points - was he trying to ensure his daughters had a prosperous future, or was he using them as pawns?
There are good arguments both ways.
The televised version of White Queen presented him in a strongly manipulative and very negative manner - way over done.

[K.L.]

I don't think the two were mutually exclusive, Gillian, for Warwick or any other father of his time. Marriages were not usually conducted with simply the happiness of the bride or groom in mind. Warwick's own marriage (over which he had no say, and took place when he was 6) was part of much bigger things for both the Nevills and the Beauchamps. The word 'pawn' is so very loaded but, in many ways, that's what all 15th century noblemen's children were. They married the partners arranged by their parents, not just for their future benefit but for the benefit of both families.