TRUTH IS THE DAUGHTER OF TIME

The Daughter of Time, the title of the book  I've just finished reading, is derived from a historical source, as it is attributable to Sir Francis Bacon, "For truth is rightly named after the daughter of time, and not of authority." The book itself is not a traditional mystery but rather an application of deductive reasoning to an actual historical event.

With this novel (1951) the mystery novelist Josephine Tey, one of the first popular writers to question the Tudor story depicting Richard III as a monstrous, unnatural man creates one of the most extraordinary and unique works of the mystery genre. Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant, the hero of a series of mystery novels by Tey, is stuck in the hospital with a broken leg. Bored out of his mind, he decides to use his time to explore a historical mystery, and is intrigued by a portrait of Richard III presented to him by his  friend Marta Hallard, an actress. The same portrait I had in my copy of the book all the time while reading, the perfect bookmark to follow Inspector Grant's and Brent Carradine's investigations.

This has been deservedly considered one of the finest mystery novels ever written, being  an astonishingly absorbing and suspenseful exploration of the case for and against Richard III Plantagenet.
The reader is literally taken back in time to examine the accusations, testimonies and material relating to the death of Richard's brother, King Edward IV in 1483, the known history of his sons, Princes Edward and Richard,  after their father's death and their mysterious disappearance, the behavior of Edward's widow and children, including his eldest daughter Elizabeth, who becomes Henry's bride, Queen and mother to Henry VIII. JosephineTey provides an extraordinarily well researched profile of Richard III, pieced together directly from historical documents, and another profile of Henry Tudor. The author also examines the 1934 exhumation of the two children who were first dug up in 1674. Motives are examined and finally, conclusions are drawn, proving, once again, that history is written by winners.

Arguments presented by Tey in defence of King Richard III

• 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.

Weaknesses in Tey's Defence of Richard III

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. 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 ). 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

As creatively and intellectually plotted as this novel is, its true beauty lies in the fact that it encourages the reader to think: one should never accept any recorded history without question since most history is written from the perspective of those in power at the time and is not necessarily factual. Desquieting and Orwellian but  so true.  In addition, this interesting work of research  enhances knowledge and vocabulary and stirs you to look up definitions of items such as Bill of Attainder, Titulus Regius, and Star Chamber. A true full immersion in history.
I also appreciated the leitmotiv of the tonypandy, referring to The Tonypandy Riots, through which Tey displays  several cases in which "fake truths" were just crafted by people who could gain or profit from the situation in different moments in the past .

RA-NDOM THOUGHTS

  

(banner  from Enchanted Serenity of Period Films)

Oddly enough, I owe my non-Shakesperian interest in Richard III and his true history to my recent interest in another man of the same name, that is Richard Armitage. I heard him spoke of his father's and his own love for The Sunne in Splendour by Susan Kay Penman (1982), which started my deeply felt journey through this intricate historical matter. I really hope to see Richard Armitage's dream come true:  a TV series dedicated to this wrongly judged but talented and fair monarch, in order to make him justice and make more and more people aware of the truth about him. I fear - as he himself admitted - busy Richard  will be to old to be the protagonist, Richard III, who died at only 34 at Bosworth. But he could be a fascinating bearded kingmaker: Richard Neville,  Earl of Warwick,   his wife Anne's father  and his uncle.


This my  only second read ( after The Sunne in Splendour) sympathizing with the cause of the Ricardian Society and aiming at the re-evaluation and  redemption of the stained image of King Richard III Plantagenet , which was the result of  the distorted, false recount of events made by  historians at the age of the Tudors, men obeying to the demands of the power like  Thomas More and John Morton. Any  suggestion for further readings?

Useful links for further information about Richard III
Article on Josephine Tey by The Richard III American Society
What History Has to Say about Richard III
History Worth Reading