The Daughter of Time

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 novel by Josephine Tey, often referenced by "supporters" of King Richard III of England, despite the fact that it never claims to be other than fiction. It was the last book Tey published, shortly before her death.

Contents 1 Plot summary 2 Literary significance and criticism 3 Works with similar themes 4 References 5 External links

[edit] Plot summary

Tey's regular hero, Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant, is forced to spend time laid up in hospital. Becoming interested in a postcard of a portrait that his friend Marta brings to him, he asks for history books. Because of the lack of imagination shown in modern mystery fiction, he has friends research reference books and contemporary documents so he can puzzle out the mystery of whether King Richard III of England murdered his nephews, the Princes in the Tower.

The "research" carried out by Grant is based on historic fact. The conclusion that Richard III is not guilty, however, is based to some extent on Grant's "gut feeling" having looked at the portrait, as a detective, that Richard is a good man and therefore not capable of such a crime. Grant also reasons that due to the Titulus Regius, Richard III gained little by killing his nephews, who were his older brother Edward IV's sons. This document, which declared the two boys illegitimate, negated their claim to the throne. Richard's other brother, George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, had been executed for treason, negating his children's claim to the throne. Thus Tey through Grant reasons that, assuming Richard was supported by the people, there was no one else in line to the throne before him and, therefore, no reasons for him to murder his "illegitimate" nephews.

As a more likely culprit Henry VII is presented because during his reign he repealed the Titulus Regius and destroyed it without it being read, legitimizing the nephews again. He did so because he married Elizabeth, elder sister of the princes, to cement his otherwise threadbare claim to the throne--doing so, however, placed the princes as legitimate King and heir to the English throne. Assuming they were alive at this time, these two boys would then have represented a terrible peril to the Tudor claim, and threatened Henry's reign to a vastly greater extent than they did Richard's.

Another central plank of Tey/Grant's argument is the lack of any contemporary accusation against Richard. At the time of her writing, however, accounts by writers such as Dominic Mancini were already being uncovered which made it clear that English public opinion had indeed grown concerned about the princes' fate at the hands of their uncle. It cannot be denied, however, that Henry Tudor made no accusation of child-murder against their uncle, when such an accusation, if it could possibly be made, would have been a prime plank in Henry's case. Tey makes a case for "English public opinion" being manufactured entirely by John Morton in the matter of the Princes.

Furthermore, Tey points out that virtually all other possible Yorkist claimants to the throne were alive, free, and living on pensions from Richard at the time of Richard's death at Bosworth, making the murder of the princes incongruous. Each of them was, however, executed by Henry VII. Similarly, the mother of the princes lived at court on Richard's pension, but was forced to live in a convent eighteen months after Henry's accession. This lady, Elizabeth Woodville, not only accepted a pension from Richard III, but was in good terms with him. Tey reasons this would be utterly unthinkable if Elizabeth had any reason to believe Richard had done any harm to her sons.

Near the end of the book, Tey, through Grant, sums up a list of reasons to believe in the innocence of Richard III and the guilt of Henry VII. There are half a dozen good reasons for each.

Tey also points out that such luminaries as Horace Walpole have written strong vindications of Richard III against the charge of murder.

The concluding point of the book is the one that started Inspector Grant on his investigation: Such a kind and wise face cannot belong to a ruthless murderer.

[edit] 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]

[edit] Works with similar themes

• Valerie Anand, another popular writer, wrote a novel, Crown of Roses, in which Richard III is presented as innocent of the murder of the Princes.
• Horace Walpole also wrote a defense of the innocence of Richard III.

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Article on Josephine Tey from Richard III Society, American Branch