Back

ⓘ The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officers investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III o ..




The Daughter of Time
                                     

ⓘ The Daughter of Time

The Daughter of Time is a 1951 detective novel by Josephine Tey, concerning a modern police officers investigation into the alleged crimes of King Richard III of England. It was the last book Tey published in her lifetime, shortly before her death. In 1990 it was voted number one in The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list compiled by the British Crime Writers Association. In 1995 it was voted number four in The Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list compiled by the Mystery Writers of America.

                                     

1. Plot summary

Alan Grant, Scotland Yard Inspector a character who also appears in five other novels by the same author is feeling bored while confined to bed in hospital with a broken leg. Marta Hallard, an actress friend of his, suggests that he should amuse himself by researching a historical mystery. She brings him some pictures of historical characters, aware of Grants interest in human faces. He becomes intrigued by a portrait of King Richard III. He prides himself on being able to read a persons character from his appearance, and King Richard seems to him a gentle, kind and wise man. Why is everyone so sure that he was a cruel murderer?

With the help of other friends and acquaintances, Grant investigates Richards life and the case of the Princes in the Tower, testing out his theories on the doctors and nurses who attend to him. Grant spends weeks pondering historical information and documents with the help of Brent Carradine, a likable young American researcher working in the British Museum. Using his detectives 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.

                                     

2. Themes and arguments

The book explores how history is constructed, and how certain versions of events come to be widely accepted as the truth, despite a lack of evidence and/or any logical plausibility. Grant comes to understand the ways that great myths or urban legends are constructed, and how in this case, the victorious Tudors saw to it that their version of history prevailed.

The novels title is taken from an old proverb "Truth is the daughter of time" which is quoted by Tey as the novels epigraph. Like all aphorisms this proverb has been directly quoted, paraphrased or enhanced many times over the centuries by multiple famous literate thinkers such as Aulus Gellius and Abraham Lincoln direct quotes; Sir Francis Bacon enhanced quote: "Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority."; and Thales to name just a few.

The novel also explores and pastiches different types of historical writing. In his research, Grant starts with childrens history books, then moves on to general popular histories and the very scholarly but dull "Tanners Constitutional History of England". He also reads Thomas Mores History of King Richard III and a historical novel called The Rose of Raby by "Evelyn Payne-Ellis", about the life of Richards mother Cecily Neville. Both Tanners history and the novel are non-existent; it has been suggested that the title of the latter is derived from Guy Pagets 1937 biography of the same name.

Other alleged historical myths touched upon by the author are the commonly believed but false story that troops fired on the public at the 1910 Tonypandy Riot, the traditional depiction of the Boston Massacre, the martyrdom of Margaret Wilson and the life and death of Mary, Queen of Scots. Grant adopts the term "Tonypandy" to describe widely believed historical myths, such as the supposed shootings at the Tonypandy Riots and believes popular accounts of Richards activities to fall into this category. This line of thought reflects a dislike and distrust of emotional popular narratives concerning supposed historical injustices which also surfaces in Teys other works.

                                     

3. Grants case for the innocence of Richard III

In this novel, as in her other works such as The Franchise Affair and Miss Pym Disposes, Josephine Tey relies partially on physiognomy as a means of determining an initial assessment of a persons character. Grants first impetus towards an intellectual investigation of whether Richard III really had the two main heirs to his dead brothers throne callously murdered in the Tower of London his early certainty that Richards face could not possibly be that of someone who would perform such a base crime as the cold-blooded murder of his two young nephews. However, this is just an initial gut feel; the original spark that makes Grant want to know more about and thus ultimately research and investigate the true character and background of Richard III rather than any of the other historical personae of whom his friend Marta Hallard has provided him with images in order to alleviate his bed-ridden boredom.

The subsequent police-like investigation that Grant undertakes during the remainder of the novel in order to find some circumstantial evidence that Richard or anyone else disposed of the princes reveals that there never was a Bill of Attainder, Coroners inquest, or any other legal proceeding that contemporaneously accused – much less convicted – Richard III of any foul play against the Princes in the Tower. It also points out that the princes were not reported missing by anyone until after the Battle of Bosworth Field, by which time Richard was dead and the princes were now in Henry VIIs custody in the Tower. Grant comes to the conclusion that Henry is a much more likely perpetrator of the dual regicide than Richard when the question of who instigated the killing of the princes? is approached from the traditional crime detection perspective of means, motive and opportunity – particularly motive.

Teys pro-Richard arguments repeat some of those made in Clements Markhams 1906 book Richard III: his life & character, reviewed in the light of recent research.

The main arguments presented in the book in defence of King Richard:

  • There is no contemporary recorded evidence that the princes were missing from the Tower before Henry VII took over custody of them. It is only at that juncture that the rumours and speculative accusations start to be recorded in historical documents.
  • There was no political advantage for Richard III in killing the young princes once he was king. Richards own right to the crown was unassailable as he had been both popularly acclaimed King of England by the public as well as legitimately declared to be king by an Act of Parliament known as Titulus Regius which declared, among other things, that Edward IVs marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was a bigamous one since he was already party to a precontracted marriage to Lady Eleanor Talbot at the time. Consequently, the act declared that all of the deceased kings offspring via this later bigamous partnership – the two young princes and their sister Elizabeth of York – were illegitimate and thus debarred from ascending the throne. His niece and two nephews thus represented no threat to Richard once this act was passed and he had subsequently attained the crown.
  • The two princes were much more of a threat to Henry VII as the foundation of his Tudor claim to the crown was significantly more convoluted than their more immediate Yorkist line of succession as both Edward IVs male offspring and declared heirs and Richard IIIs nephews. In order to bolster his own claim to the throne once he was crowned king, Henry VII married Edward IVs only daughter and Richards niece Elizabeth. Since Titulus Regius passed by Parliament on 25 June 1483 invalidated Elizabeths claim to accession due to it declaring her and her two brothers as being bastard progeny, one of Henrys first acts as the newly crowned king was to order Parliament to repeal the Titulus Regius act and completely eradicate its existence from its records so that her claim to the throne would once again be legitimate. This suppression and official eradication of Titulus Regius was so successfully executed that an overlooked manuscript copy of the act wasnt discovered for another hundred years or so. However, in eradicating any trace of Titulus Regius Henry also caused the line of accession to the throne of her two brothers to be similarly legitimate again, hence the two princes now represented a greater obstacle and threat to Henrys usurpation than his marriage to Elizabeth supported it. Repeal and retroactive suppression of Titulus Regius immediately made the oldest of her brothers the legitimate reigning monarch once again, and his younger brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York his immediate legitimate heir. Consequently, once Titulus Regius was repealed and eradicated the two re-legitimised princes would similarly have to be removed along with it.
  • The Bill of Attainder that Henry and his supportive magnates did subsequently file against the deceased Richard merely accuses him generically of "cruelty and tyranny" during his reign – there is no specific accusation, nor even a mention, in it of Richards suspected complicity in the princes disappearance / assumed deaths. Yet this very same Attainder falsely dates Henrys immediate accession to the throne to the day previous to the Battle of Bosworth Field in order that all of Richards followers who survived the battle could be accused in the Attainder of treason against the now reigning monarch Henry VII, when in fact at the time of the battle they were the loyal followers of an anointed king Richard III fighting against an invader/usurper Henry Tudor. Despite this clearly unscrupulous falsification of the truth in the Attainder, it did not occur to its authors to also include in it any accusation of Richard as the instigator of the princes disappearance and subsequent deaths – or even just his incompetent protective custody of them in allowing their demise to happen while he was their Protector.
  • The mother of the princes, Elizabeth Woodville, remained on genuinely good terms with Richard once he was king, and her daughters regularly took part in social events at his court. This was hardly the behaviour of a mother who believed, or even just suspected, that Richard had ordered the deaths of both her young sons.
  • Although a Bill of Attainder was brought by Henry VII against Richard after the battle of Bosworth it made no mention of the princes disappearance from the Tower – strongly suggesting that at the time the Attainder was presented to Parliament the princes were not yet missing. Henry effectively took over the custody of the princes on his victorious return to London after defeating Richard in Bosworth. If the princes had been missing from the Tower at that time it is inconceivable that Henry, or any of his supporting magnates, would not have immediately taken full advantage of such a propaganda trump card and made that fact widely known in order to defray any possible public resistance to Henrys effective Tudor usurpation of the Yorkist line of accession to the crown.
  • With Titulus Regius enacted the two princes represented no threat whatsoever to Richard once he was crowned king. With Titulus Regius repealed and suppressed the two princes had a much more legitimate claim to the throne than Henry Tudor did, even if he was married to their sister after he was crowned. Therefore, Henry had a strong motive for killing his future brothers-in-law once he initiated the repeal and suppression of Titulus Regius while Richard had no motive at all to dispose of his nephews once he had convinced Parliament to enact Titulus Regius.

Grant and his American collaborator argue that there is little evidence of resistance to Richards rule ignoring Buckinghams rebellion. They allow that there were rumours of his murdering the princes during his lifetime, but they decide that the rumours had little circulation, and attribute them to the Croyland Chronicle and to the Lord Chancellor of France, and ultimately to Tudor sympathiser John Morton. They also propose that Morton was the actual author of Thomas Mores biography of Richard, suggesting that the incomplete manuscript found after Mores death was an unfinished copy by More of Mortons lost original. They conclude that the princes probably remained alive throughout Richards reign and were later killed by Henry.



                                     

4. Literary significance and criticism

On its publication Anthony Boucher called the book "one of the permanent classics in the detective field. one of the best, not of the year, but of all time". Dorothy B. Hughes also praised it, saying it is "not only one of the most important mysteries of the year, but of all years of mystery". The novel is listed as number one on the CWAs Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time list and number four on the MWAs Top 100 Mystery Novels of All Time list.

Winston Churchill stated in his History of the English-Speaking Peoples his belief in Richards guilt of the murder of the princes, adding, "It will take many ingenious books to raise the issue to the dignity of a historical controversy", probably referring to Teys novel, published seven years earlier. The papers of Sir Alan Lascelles contain a reference to his conversation with Churchill about the book.

                                     

5. Adaptations

There have been two radio adaptations broadcast. First in 1952 scriptwriter not credited and on 25 December 1982 on BBC Radio 4 FMs Afternoon Theatre, dramatised by Neville Teller.

                                     

6. Works with related themes

  • Colin Dexter uses the same plot device of the incapacitated detective solving an old mystery in The Wench Is Dead.
  • Guy M. Townsends To Prove a Villain is a detective novel about a series of modern murders that seem to be linked to Richard III. The hero, a history professor, launches a scathing attack on Teys arguments as "hopelessly unprofessional and untrustworthy for her slavish following of Clements Markhams argument".
  • Mystery author Elizabeth Peterss novel The Murders of Richard III references Teys book repeatedly.
                                     
  • Daughter of Time may refer to: Daughter of Time album 1970 album by Colosseum Daughter of Time Trilogy, omnibus of the novels Reader, Writer, and Maker
  • The Daughter of Time Trilogy is the omnibus of the novels Reader, Writer, and Maker by biomedical scientist Erec Stebbins. The novels are space operas
  • Lucy, the Daughter of the Devil is an American computer - animated television series aired by the Cartoon Network s late - night programming block Adult Swim
  • on the planet Messaline, the episode features Georgia Moffett as Jenny, the cloned daughter of the series protagonist, the alien time traveller the Tenth
  • Miner s Daughter is a 1980 American biographical musical film directed by Michael Apted from a screenplay written by Tom Rickman. It follows the story of country
  • Daughter of Time is the fourth album by Colosseum, released in 1970. The album remained for five weeks in the UK Albums Chart peaking number 23. Recorded
  • The farmer s daughter is a term for a stock character and stereotype in fiction for the daughter of a farmer, who is often portrayed as a desirable and
  • some to white stars in the same film, with results that seem discordant today even if widely accepted at the time Daughter of Shanghai was prepared as
  • A daughter is a female offspring - a girl or woman in relation to her parents. Daughterhood is the state of being someone s daughter The male counterpart
  • his daughter Lulu, who was seven at the time it was completed. Simon s son, Adrian, sings harmony on the song s choruses he was 10 years old at the time