The Daughter of Time: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:13, 22 March 2010

Book cover

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 novel by Josephine Tey concerning King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published, shortly before her death.

Plot summary

Alan Grant, Scotland Yard Inspector (a character who also appears in five other novels by the same author) is in hospital recovering from injuries. He becomes intrigued by a reproduction of a portrait of King Richard III. He prides himself on being able to read a person's character from his appearance, and King Richard seems to him a gentle and kind and wise man. Why is everyone so sure that he was a cruel murderer? With the help of friends and acquaintances, Alan Grant investigates the case of the Princes in the Tower. Grant spends weeks pondering historical information and documents with the help of an American researcher for the British Museum. Using his detective's logic, he comes to the conclusion that the claim of Richard being a murderer is a fabrication of Tudor propaganda, as is the popular image of the King as a monstrous hunchback. He describes the building of such myths as "pure Tonypandy", a reference to the story that troops fired on the public during the 1910 Tonypandy Riot.

Literary significance and criticism

"Without leaving his bed, Grant investigates the evidence and arrives at a convincing solution by means of acute historical detection, in a tale which Anthony Boucher called "one of the permanent classics in the detective field," and which Dorothy B. Hughes has termed "not only one of the most important mysteries of the year, but of all years of mystery".^[1]

The title of the novel is taken from Bertolt Brecht's play Life of Galileo, in which the eponymous hero observes: "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."

The Innocence or Guilt of King Richard III

Arguments presented in the book in defence of King Richard:

The Bill of Attainder brought by Henry VII against Richard III makes no mention whatsoever of the Princes. There never was any formal accusation, much less a verdict of guilt.
The mother of the Princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on good terms with Richard. Tey sees this as proof of Richard's innocence--there are of course many possible explanations for Elizabeth Woodville's behavior, including self-interest, her hope to marry her daughter to Richard, her trying to placate him while Henry made preparations for war, as well as many others. It is certainly known that Richard had her brother murdered, so her behavior toward Richard does not in any way rule out his having her sons murdered.
There was no political advantage for Richard III in killing the young princes. He was legitimately made king. (Under English law there is no absolute undeniable heir to the throne, only an Heir Apparent. In fact, any male person born in England could be declared King by the Star Chamber.)
The Princes were more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his claim to the crown was significantly more remote than theirs.

However, Tey does not mention any evidence that supports the theory that Richard murdered the Princes--specifically one character wonders why no one revolted against Richard if he was such a tyrant. This ignores the Duke of Buckingham's uprising against Richard which specifically cited the Princes as a reason. In addition, regardless of the legality of Richard's dubious claim to the throne after Edward V's proclamation as King, Richard knew the boys would be an obvious and dangerous focal point for any opposition to his reign. As a result, they would have to be eliminated.

A major question is why Richard himself did not produce the princes alive, when rumors about their murder were running rampant through London. Tey's answer is that during Richard's lifetime very few rumours circulated, and all were originated by Tudor sympathiser John Morton. Tey contends that the prices remained alive throughout Richard's reign and were later killed by Henry.

Works with similar themes

Valerie Anand, another popular writer, wrote a novel, Crown of Roses (1989), in which Richard III is presented as innocent of the murder of the Princes.
Horace Walpole also wrote a defence of the innocence of Richard III, Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of King Richard III (1768).

References

^ Roseman, Mill et al. Detectionary. New York: Overlook Press, 1971. ISBN 0-87951-041-2

External links

Article on Josephine Tey from Richard III Society, American Branch

[DET-1] Roseman, Mill et al. Detectionary. New York: Overlook Press, 1971. ISBN 0-87951-041-2

[1]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *The Princes were more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his claim to the crown was significantly more remote than theirs.
-However, Tey does not mention any evidence that supports the theory that Richard murdered the Princes--specifically one character wonders why no one revolted against Richard if he was such a tyrant.  This ignores the [[Duke of Buckingham]]'s uprising against Richard which specifically cited the Princes as a reason.  In addition, regardless of the legality of Richard's dubious claim to the throne after Edward V's proclamation as King, Richard knew the boys would be an obvious and dangerous focal point for any opposition to his reign.  As a result, they would have to be eliminated.  Perhaps most glaringly, Tey never addresses why Richard himself did not produce the princes alive, when rumors about their murder were running rampant through London.  Her conclusion that Henry VII had the Princes murdered is not supported by most historians since Henry was contained in [[Brittany]] and [[France]] during most of Richard's reign, with very little opportunity to sneak into England to have the Princes murdered. (Tey specifically argues that there were no such rumours, and that the Henry VII killed the princes during his reign, not that of Richard III) If in fact he had been able to accomplish this against such odds, it might be asked why would he not have had Richard killed as well.
+However, Tey does not mention any evidence that supports the theory that Richard murdered the Princes--specifically one character wonders why no one revolted against Richard if he was such a tyrant.  This ignores the [[Duke of Buckingham]]'s uprising against Richard which specifically cited the Princes as a reason.  In addition, regardless of the legality of Richard's dubious claim to the throne after Edward V's proclamation as King, Richard knew the boys would be an obvious and dangerous focal point for any opposition to his reign.  As a result, they would have to be eliminated.
+A major question is why Richard himself did not produce the princes alive, when rumors about their murder were running rampant through London. Tey's answer is that during Richard's lifetime
+very few rumours circulated, and all were originated by Tudor sympathiser [[John Morton (archbishop)|John Morton]]. Tey contends that the prices remained alive throughout Richard's reign and were later killed by Henry.
 ==Works with similar themes==