#warwick kin

[the-kinfesssional]

Hi just appearing to wave at that Erik that posted. Good to see other DQ kins around, Jasper (and another Erik) and Warwick from DQB2 here.

— 🌂

🪽

[gluttonyedits]

self-indulgent: Warwick moodboard Do not tag as kin/ID/me.

[villainkinconfessions]

You know what? Sometimes I get tired of trying to look up content of myself, and it’s all people going “oh Warwick’s the worst because he locked best boy Malroth in the dungeons!”

I don’t get how they expected me to react. He just happened to be there at the time as a scapegoat. I was trying to make every single precaution so I got out alive and he was in my way with his capabilities of destruction. I could have survived. My treachery could have gone the way I planned it to go. But no.

I was so scared of dying. And I hate how no one seems to remember that about me. They don’t even portray me as a proper villain, all they see me as is some disloyal knight who locked their favourite character up.

— Warwick, Dragon Quest Builders 2

.

[wonder-worker]

The division between the two families [the Woodvilles and the Nevilles] and their allies can be seen in the royal charters that they witnessed. Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville of York, while serving as chancellor and afterwards, were fairly constant witnesses to royal charters and consequently often appeared together. This was not, however, the case for other family members and friends. From 1466 to 1469, if Scales or Woodville associates like Sir John Fogge, John Lord Audley or Humphrey Lord Stafford of Southwick witnessed royal charters, then members of the Neville group, such as John Neville, earl of Northumberland, or John Lord Wenlock would not, and vice versa. Discounting the ubiquitous Warwick, Rivers and Archbishop Neville, of the twenty-four charters issued between February 1466 and June 1469, twelve were witnessed by men associated with the Woodvilles, eight by men associated with the Nevilles and two were witnessed by no member of either group beyond the two earls at their heads and the archbishop; only two charters, both from 1466, featured associates of both families.

Such striking segregation of witnesses suggests that something more than simple convenience or availability was at play. [...] The evidence of these witness lists does show the extent of the split between the two groups from early in Edward's [first] reign and of the need for political society to work with that cleavage in the heart of the Yorkist regime."

-Theron Westervelt, "Royal charter witness lists and the politics of the reign of Edward IV"

*This is specifically applicable for Edward IV's first reign; in contrast, the charters in his second reign displayed a great deal of aristocratic and domestic unity and cohesion.

[theirmarks]

Miantonomo, Miantonomoh, Myantonomy. His Mark. (repost from 12.27.22)

Nahaganset (Narragansett). His home along the western shores of Narragansett Bay, in so-called Rhode Island, and into so-called eastern Connecticut. Sachem. In 1640s, appealed to sister tribes to create an alliance against colonizers. Brought to Mass. Bay Colony in 1640 on charges of conspiracy against settlers.  Executed in Mohegan territory in 1643 following tensions with Mohegan sachem, Uncas and the English.

Place names mentioned in this deed, for so-called “Warwick, RI,” signed January 1642, include:  “Sowhanes Bay,” “Copassanatuxett,” “Shawhomet” (spelled as they appear in the document).

His kin: Son of Mascus; nephew to Canonicus; brother to Pessicus; father of Canonchet. His partner: Wawaloam. 

[Indian deed of Warwick, Rhode Island], 1642. Seen @ John Carter Brown Library, Providence, RI.

[edwardslovelyelizabeth]

Hi, I have heard many rumors that Elizabeth Woodwell convinced Edward IV to cancel the marriage of the Elizabeth Neville family in York today? She was the promoter of a famous judicial murder?

Hi! I don't know what marriage you are referring to be honest, but I'm pretty sure Edward IV wouldn't do anything he didn't wish to do. It's often the case when historians say that Elizabeth, Earl of Warwick (in the early years) and Cecily Neville at various points in life had too much influence over Edward but then they say he was a smart calculating man who knew military strategy, who promoted trade and finance, famously one of the rare sovereigns who left his country not in debt when he died, so it's either he was a puppet or he was a smart man of his own mind, you can't really be both. He wanted to promote the Woodvilles because they were his new kin through marriage and he could gain more supporters/tie through those marriages new wealthy families to the Yorkist cause. It was a smart move on his part, he was using them to make more Lancastrian-York alliances that would be ties through blood (marriage -new families).

As to "judicial murder" do you have in mind the execution of the earl of Desmond ? The first source for the story is this memorandum allegedly presented to Henry VIII’s (16th century) privy council by James FitzJohn Fitzgerald, Earl of Desmond, Thomas’s grandson, but there is no source of this document where it was published. Several historians admitted that he couldn't find the source. if such document really was presented it contains historical errors, such as, the memorandum’s statement that Edward IV, shocked by Desmond’s execution, caused the Lord Justice (i.e. Tiptoft) to ‘be put to a very cruel and shameful death, which is not true because Tiptof was not executed until 1470, and it was not the exiled Edward IV but the Earl of Warwick, then governing for the restored Henry VI, who ordered Tiptoft’s death. In short there is no proof that Elizabeth was ever involved in anything that happened with Earl of Desmond, her contemporaries certainly never mentioned any of the sort.

[danmoorhouse]

Betrayal in the Wars of the Roses, Volume 1

By Dan Moorhouse

Reviewed July 21, 2023 by Kathy.

Disclaimer! I read many of the chapters in this book while it was still a work in progress.

Betrayal, especially in the history books, is often portrayed in basic terms of black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. Those who betray during times of civil strife, such as the Wars of the Roses, often suffer from this kind of two-dimensional thinking. However, the reality is much more complex and nuanced.

Betrayal in the Wars of the Roses, the first volume of a planned three part series, takes a deeper look at some of the better known betrayals in the Wars of the Roses, examining kinship, patronage, and loyalty, helping to put things into context and showing that good lordship was a two way street, with each side having obligations to the other, and if those obligations were not properly filled…well, then, that’s when things could get sticky.

After an introduction that sets the table, we are provided with chapters on the following “betrayers” – George, Duke of Clarence; Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick; Henry Beaufort, 3rd Duke of Somerset; Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland; Richard Woodville, 1st Earl Rivers; Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby; and Sir Anthony Trollope. Not only are people looked at in this book of betrayals, the role of towns is also studied with a chapter dedicated each to Calais and York.

While a case can be made for each of the above men being guilty of betrayal, in just about every instance there were mitigating circumstances. And in several cases, it was the king (usually Edward IV) who handled situations in what seemed to me a clumsy manner, leaving me thinking, “It’s no wonder he rebelled!” I won’t go into detailing the information presented for each of the men above, but as an example will present the case of George of Clarence. And no, I’m not going to touch the case of umpteen times great-grandfather Thomas Stanley with the proverbial 10 foot pole.

Now George is often described as a petulant, ungrateful younger brother, never satisfied with what he had and always wanting more. Now, maybe that is true, at least in part, but it’s not the whole story. As a young man, George had seen his sister Margaret make a high-status marriage, while his own wishes for an equally prominent marriage were nixed by, who else, his brother the king. He was granted significant wealth but his proposed expenses that included lavish improvements to Tutbury Castle outreached his income. I think today we’d say that George liked living beyond his means. He was appointed Lieutenant of Ireland, an office his father once held, but later had his right to govern as his father had curtailed. There were other issues, but these will do for this example and will show that while some of George’s problems were of his own making, not all of them were, and if these matters had been handled differently by Edward, it is possible that some of the tragedies in George’s life might have been avoided.

In the end, the question of betrayal has to be looked at through the lens of family relationships, which were extremely important in medieval England, who one owed the most loyalty to (kin or king?), and whether the principles of good lordship were observed by all parties. And when it came to loyalty to the Crown, what exactly are we referring to – the institution of kingship, or the individual sitting on the throne?

This book is filled with enough details and quotes from original documents to satisfy the geekiest of history geeks, yet remains readable and entertaining, and it even got me to question some previously held beliefs. So while I may never completely forgive my great-great (etc) grandfather for betraying Richard III, I at least have a better understanding of why he made the choices he did.

https://mybook.to/Betrayal-paperback

https://mybook.to/Betrayal-paperback

[lehguru]

honestly if riot keeps on showing me warwick in the arcane trailers without giving me more of the real deal i will kin jinx rlly soon

[rebeleden]

Watch "Investigator Claims Whitney Houston Was Murdered" on YouTube

CC CRACK HEAD LIAR GARY GARLAND AND PAT

THEY ARE NOT HOUSTONS

WHO HELPED WH RUN UP HER FATAL DRUG TABS????????

CC FATAL ENVIOUS DRUGGED KIN

LIAR GARY HATED LESSBIAN DDW BECAUSE DDW SUPPORTED LESBIAN TEEN LOVERS WH AND RC

EVIL HOMOHATRED KILLS

I BELIEVE DIONNE WARWICK AND CISSY. THEY SAY DDW NEVER MOLESTED ANYONE. AND SO DOES RC....

[endingboyhansel]

Apologies for my error, but I missed that you don't want doubles interacting. Jasper was not a kintype, he was a very intense fictionflicker that lasted for over a year, but he is still quite important to me. If I have overstepped your boundaries I once again offer my apologies.

Oh no I’m fine with doubles for Jasper don’t worry! You probably read it wrong. ^^ The only Dragon Quest kin I have problems with doubles for is Warwick.

[fictionkinfessions]

Uh. Hi. Just wanting to say, if there’s any Builder or Malroth kins out there, or anyone from Moonbrooke, I wish I had my chance to see it your way. I was just too scared of dying in the end. Pitiful, am I right? I was so used to it… and to end up dead at the hands of my “friends”. Creation triumphs, I guess. Anyway, I hope you all are well.

— Warwick, Dragon Quest Builders 2 #📺🎙️💥

🍁

[gluttonyedits]

“Warwick, captain of the Moonbrooke Brigade of Guards, at your service.”

self-indulgent: Warwick stimboard

🗡️ 🏰 🗡️ • 💙 🛡️ 💙 • 🌑 🏰 🌑

• Please do not tag as kin/ID/me! •

[laresearchette]

Sunday, January 01, 2023 Canadian TV Listings (Times Eastern)

WHERE CAN I FIND THOSE PREMIERES?: THE DOG LOVER'S GUIDE TO DATING (W Network) 8:00pm DIONNE WARWICK: DON'T MAKE ME OVER (CNN) 9:00pm UGLIEST HOUSE IN AMERICA (HGTV Canada) 10:00pm HGTV DREAM HOME 2023 (HGTV Canada) 10:30pm

WHAT IS NOT PREMIERING IN CANADA TONIGHT?: MAGIC OF DISNEY'S ANIMAL KINGDOM (Premiering on January 06 on Nat Geo Canada at 8:00pm) SEWER DIVERS (Premiering on January 08 on Discovery Canada at 9:00pm) CATFISH KILLER (TBD - Lifetime Canada) ENGAGED TO BE MURDERED (TBD - Lifetime Canada) WORST COOKS IN AMERICA (TBD - Makeful) PAUL T. GOLDMAN (TBD)

NEW TO AMAZON PRIME CANADA/CBC GEM/CRAVE TV/DISNEY + STAR/NETFLIX CANADA:

CRAVE TV THE BAD GUYS MYSTERY MEN

NETFLIX CANADA 13 GOING ON 30 HYENA ROAD THE INTERVIEW KALEIDOSCOPE LADY VOYEUR MADE OF HONOR OLD ENOUGH! (Season 2) PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: NEXT OF KIN THE ROYALS (Seasons 1-4) SOUL SURFER     THE WAY OF THE HOUSEHUSBAND (Season 2)

NFL FOOTBALL (TSN/TSN3/TSN4/TSN5) 1:00pm: Dolphins vs. Patriots (TSN/TSN3/TSN4/TSN5) 4:00pm: Jets vs. Seahawks (TSN/TSN3/TSN4) 8:15pm: Steelers vs. Ravens

NHL HOCKEY (SN) 3:00pm: Hurricanes vs. Devils (SN1) 5:00pm: Rangers vs. Panthers (TSN5) 7:00pm: Sabres vs. Sens (SN) 8:00pm: Islanders vs. Kraken

DOWNTON ABBEY (Global) 7:00pm:  The beloved Crawleys and their intrepid staff prepare for the most important moment of their lives. A royal visit from the king and queen of England soon unleashes scandal, romance and intrigue -- leaving the future of Downton hanging in the balance.

JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE (CBC) 7:00pm:  Four teens embark on the adventure of a lifetime when a video game magically transports them to the jungle and transforms them into adults.

THE BAD GUYS (Crave) 7:15pm: After a lifetime of legendary heists, notorious criminals Mr. Wolf, Mr. Snake, Mr. Piranha, Mr. Shark and Ms. Tarantula face their most challenging con yet -- becoming model citizens.

NBA BASKETBALL (SN1) 8:00pm: Wizards vs. Bucks

THE CURSE OF OAK ISLAND: DRILLING DOWN (History Canada) 10:00pm: Matty Blake and the team examine the most compelling sites in the Money Pit area where the original treasure shaft and the legendary treasure could be located.

[wonder-worker]

"Among their complaints [in 1460, the Yorkists] specifically blamed the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont for ‘stirring’ the king [Henry VI] to hold a parliament at Coventry that would attaint them and for keeping them from the king’s presence and likely mercy, asserting that this was done against [the king's] will. To this they added the charge that these evil counselors were also tyrannizing other true men* without the king’s knowledge. Such claims of malfeasance obliquely raised the question of Henry’s fitness as a king, for how could he be deemed competent if such things happened without his knowledge and against his wishes? They also tied in rumors circulating somewhat earlier in the southern counties and likely to have originated in Calais that Henry was really ‘good and gracious Lord to the [Yorkists] since, it was alleged, he had not known of or assented to their attainders. On 11 June the king was compelled to issue a proclamation stating that they were indeed traitors and that assertions to the contrary were to be ignored." - Helen Maurer, "Margaret of Anjou: "Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England"

Three things that we can surmise from this:

We know where the "Henry was an innocent helpless king being controlled and manipulated by his Evil™ advisors" rhetoric came from**.

The Yorkists were deliberately trying to downplay Henry VI's actual role and involvement in politics and the Wars of the Roses. They cast him as a "statue of a king", blamed all royal policies and decisions on others*** (claiming that Henry wasn't even aware of them), and framed themselves as righteous and misunderstood counselors who remained loyal to the crown. We should keep this in mind when we look at chronicles' comments of Henry's alleged passivity and the so-called "role reversal" between him and Queen Margaret.

Henry VI's actual agency and involvement is nevertheless proven by his own actions. We know what he thought of the Yorkists, and we know he took the effort to publicly counter their claims through a proclamation of his own. That speaks louder than the politically motivated narrative of his enemies, don't you think?

*There was some truth to these criticisms. For example, Wiltshire (ie: one of the men named in the pamphlet) was reportedly involved in a horrible situation in June which included hangings and imprisonments for tax resistance in Newbury. The best propagandists always contain a degree of truth, etc. **I've seen some theories on why Margaret of Anjou wasn't mentioned in these pamphlets alongside the others even though she was clearly being vilified during that time as well, and honestly, I think those speculations are mostly unnecessary. Margaret was absent because it was regarded as very unseemly to target queens in such an officially public manner. We see a similar situation a decade later: Elizabeth Woodville was vilified and her whole family - popularly and administratively known as "the queen's kin" - was disparaged in Warwick and Clarence's pamphlets. This would have inevitably associated her with their official complaints far more than Margaret had been, but she was also not directly mentioned. It was simply not considered appropriate. ***This narrative was begun by the Duke of York & Warwick and was - demonstrably - already widespread by the end of 1460. When Edward IV came to power, there seems to have been a slight shift in how he spoke of Henry (he referred to Henry as their "great enemy and adversary"; his envoys were clearly willing to acknowledge Henry's role in Lancastrian resistance to Yorkist rule; etc), but he nevertheless continued the former narrative for the most part. I think this was because 1) it was already well-established and widespread by his father, and 2) downplaying Henry's authority would have served to emphasize Edward's own kingship, which was probably advantageous for a usurper whose deposed rival was still alive and out of reach. In some sense, the Lancastrians did the same thing with their own propaganda across the 1460s, which was clearly not as effective in terms of garnering support and is too long to get into right now, but was still very relevant when it came to emphasizing their own right to the throne while disparaging the Yorkists' claim.

[theirmarks]

Pumham. Sachem of Showhomett Pumhomm. 

Sachem at Shawomet, or so-called “Warwick, Rhode Island,” Pumham had an interesting and well documented relationship with both English colonizers and Narragansett relatives. Settlers in Warwick tried to arrest Pumham for an insurrection attempt in 1659 and later moved to expel Pumham from Shawomet altogether, in 1667. Pumham refused to leave and would remain in Shawomet until he was killed by settlers in July of 1676 while fighting with Pometacom in King Philip’s War.

In this document, Pomham signs as witness to a transfer of land “lyinge uppon the west syde of that part of the sea called Sowhanes Bay, from Copassanatuxett, over against a little island in the sayd bay, being the north bounds, and the outmost point that neck of land called Shawhomet…” signed by Miantonomo.

Their kin: at least two sons, one named Cheesechamut.

[Indian deed of Warwick, Rhode Island], 1642. Seen @ John Carter Brown Library.

[dirtylittleanimals]

Throw it into your mouth / Gets stuck between your teeth...