The kingmaker

I have to disagree with your contention that Edward IV was the king in the term ‘kingmaker’.  In 1461, it was Edward who had the military victories, the charisma and the right blood in his veins, without which there never would have been a king named Edward IV.  Warwick, on the other hand, had the experience and the political acumen to be able to stage the ascent of his young cousin. They were a team and unbeatable.  The Lancastrians had nothing to offer against them.

Then after Warwick’s rebellion, as you say, Edward was driven into exile.  Warwick pulled Henry VI out of captivity, dusted him off and presented him to the people as their king – again.  In my opinion that’s what made him the ‘kingmaker’.  He may have been instrumental in putting Edward on the throne and keeping him there in the first years, but it must be admitted that Edward was very active in his own interests.  Whereas Henry, in 1470, did nothing to help himself.  But for his thrusting Henry back onto the throne he never would have earned that appellation.

Incidentally, it occurred to me that during his first rebellion, Warwick was probably the only man in history to hold two kings captive at the same time.  He could as easily be called ‘kingbreaker’.


Author: susanappleyardwriter

I am a writer and reader of historical fiction. In the eighties I had 2 books published traditionally and recently 2 books self-published. I live in Canada for half the year - the warm half - and Mexico for the other half.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.