The Daughter of Time
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 confined to bed in hospital with a broken leg. Bored and of restless mind, he becomes intrigued by a reproduction of a portrait of King Richard III brought to him by a friend. 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. Further, the author explores how history is constructed, and how certain versions of events come to be widely accepted as the truth, despite a lack of evidence. "The Daughter of Time" of the title is from a quote by Sir Francis Bacon: "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."[citation needed] Grant comes to understand the ways that great myths are constructed, and how in this case, the victorious Tudors saw to it that their version of history prevailed. Several other such myths are explored by the author, such as the commonly believed (but false) story that troops fired on the public at 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 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.
- In fact, there is no historical evidence whatsoever that the Princes were found missing from the Tower when Henry VII took over.
- The mother of the Princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on good terms with Richard. Tey sees this as proof of Richard's innocence. (There are 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 - but if she put any of these considerations above the lives of her sons, that would make her an unspeakable monster of evil.)
- 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 address or obscures a number of points of evidence that support the theory that Richard murdered the Princes. For example, one character wonders why no one revolted against Richard if he was such a tyrant. Tey does not then mention that there was a revolt: the Duke of Buckingham specifically cited the Princes as a reason for his uprising against Richard[citation needed]. 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, their elimination could serve to remove potential rivals.
A major question concerning the guilt or innocence of Richard is why did Richard himself not produce the princes alive, when rumours about their murder were running rampant through London. Tey's story acknowledges that there were rumours during Richard's lifetime and attributes them to the Croyland Chronicle and to the Lord Chancellor of France. But she claims they had little circulation, and all may have been originated by Tudor sympathiser John Morton. (Other commentators suggest that the Chancellor's source was Dominic Mancini [2]). Tey contends that the princes remained alive throughout Richard's reign and were later killed by Henry.
Probably her best point is that Henry never produces the bodies of the dead princes for public mourning and a state funeral, which would have been more advantageous to him than for them to be dead, but for no one to know that they were dead. If they were dead, but they were assumed to be alive, or were mysteriously missing, then there still could be an uprising in their name.
Tey acknowledges that Richard could have killed them, but then says that if he did, it would not be in the way that is popularly supposed.
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).
- Mystery author Elizabeth George revisits this theme in her novella, "I, Richard".
- Mystery author Elizabeth Peters revisits this theme and pays homage to Tey in her novel The Murders of Richard III.
- Colin Dexter uses the same plot device of the incapacitated detective solving an old mystery in The Wench is Dead
- Margaret Haddix develops an alternate plot regarding Richard and the young princes in her Missing Series book, "Sent (novel)".
References
- ^ Roseman, Mill et al. Detectionary. New York: Overlook Press, 1971. ISBN 0-87951-041-2
- ^ Writing About Richard III: Admissible Sources and Emotional Responses, Talk to the Richard III Society of NSW, Dr Carole M. Cusack, 13 February 2010.