It is not that that hath incens’d the duke: It is, because no one should sway but he; No one but he should be about the king…

The power-brokers were the leading individuals in the political community. They were a visible and integral part of the regime, collectively acting, in part, as the vehicle by which the king effectively governed in addition to the formal mechanisms of law, administration, and the departments of state. The defined measures of brokerage applied in this study have illuminated the nature of the power-broker, establishing a more nuanced picture of the characteristics that distinguished them from the rest of the ruling elite. The brokers were major recipients of royal patronage and it remains useful in identifying the political mainstays of a medieval regime, but it is merely a starting point. Royal patronage was not the sole motivator for the brokers nor was it the only sign of their political capital. There was simply too little patronage to go around before the dissolution of the monasteries in the sixteenth century, yet the monarchy continued to function in the preceding centuries even during periods of extraordinarily poor kingship. This suggests it was not an essential component in maintaining a working relationship between Crown and nobility. An absence of royal patronage did not necessitate a breakdown in their relations. The power-brokers, like the rest of the landowning aristocracy, were natural allies of the Crown and did not need to have their loyalty purchased.

This study has identified a number of additional traits related to the exercise of power that were shared only among a select number of individuals. Their careers exhibited qualities not found among the majority of nobles and the vast majority of gentry. This includes their service as intermediaries, membership within the royal familia, participation in court ceremony, and landed bases that were constructed or enhanced by royal licence. Moreover, their power was evident to observers of Yorkist rule. They were praised and condemned by these spectators who identified them as influential and monitored their actions. Yet all was not perfect homogeneity. The manifestation of influence varied between the men and women, secular and ecclesiastic. Some differences were subtle in their nature.