One of the earliest identifiable feudal affinities was that of William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke, who by 1190 had gathered a force around him consisting of men without necessarily any strong tenurial connection to him.
[7] These were men the lord trusted: for example, in 1459, on the verge of the Wars of the Roses, the earl of Salisbury gathered the closest members of his affinity to him in Middleham Castle and took their advice before publicly coming out in support of the rebellious duke of York.
[12] On the other hand, he might, as John of Gaunt did in the later fourteenth century, recruit people into his affinity regardless of their social weight, as an expression of his "courtly and chivalric ambitions", as Anthony Goodman said.
[9] By the late Middle Ages, kings such as Richard II and Henry IV had created their own affinities within the regional gentry,[17] for political as well as martial motives.
[3] Likewise, John of Gaunt's affinity increased by half between 1381 and the early 1390s and cost him far greater sums than the 10% of income that magnates generally expended on their retinues.
[29] They could also be expanded through the course of events; Edward IV's covert marriage to Elizabeth Woodville brought an important Midlands family and their retainers directly into the royal household.
[30] The traditional view among historians was that the affinity was a thirteenth-century construction that arose out of the nobility and crown's need to recruit armies, against a backdrop of declining feudal service failing to provide troops.
But as Simon Walker has put it, their unfavourable judgements have largely been replaced by a more sympathetic account that acknowledges the affinity as an essential element in the mechanics of good lordship.
[33] In the mid-fifteenth century, it could vary in organization from being secured almost exclusively by military indenture (for example, the affinity of William, Lord Hastings) to being based more on blood and marital connections, as with the House of Neville.