The Daughter of Time

Rating:
Summary: Cheated of feature by dissembling history?
Review: "Truth is the daughter of time," according to the saying from which Josephine Tey took the title of her book, and time affords Tey's detective Alan Grant plenty of perspective on the mystery he sets out to solve. Laid up with a broken leg, Grant begins investigating the alleged crimes of Richard III after scrutinizing a portrait of the fifteenth century king. According to many historians, (e.g. Alison Weirs' recent, "The Princes in the Tower"), as well as Shakespeare, St. Thomas More, and common opinion, Richard was a monster who murdered his nephews to secure the throne of England for himself. It is giving nothing away to say that Grant comes to disbelieve these authorities. Who he concludes was the real murderer I won't say, but it is interesting to think about his conclusion in the light of the economic consequence of the Reformation.

Teys skillfully summarizes the historical facts and the case for Richard's innocence and presents them in an entertaining way, but considered strictly as a murder mystery her story comes off somewhat strained and contrived. Also she is bit hard on St. Thomas More ("the sainted More") on whose history of Richard much subsequent history depends, even though she determines that More was deceived by the testimony of the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Morton. If your interest is piqued by Tey's account, do a search for "Richard III Society". They have a website with lots of further information on the question.

Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for anyone who likes history...
Review: ...Or for anyone who thinks that they don't.

What happens when a bored detective meets a postcard of an evil man? What happens when he decides that the man doesn't look so evil? A fascinating search into revisionist history, that's what!

Alan Grant, detective extraordinaire, is laid up in the hospital when he comes across a picture of Richard III. You know, the ugly, hunchbacked guy who murdered his nephews, usurped their throne, and then yelled "My kingdom for a horse!" before dying his much-deserved death at the hands of Henry VII. The only problem is that Alan, who is never wrong about a face, thinks that Richard looks like a pretty decent guy.

With the help of a few intrepid assistants who have access to the outside world, he decides to unravel the mystery of the Princes in the Tower. He must first work through 500 years of propaganda, lies, and questionable historical research.

Is this book the end-all of the pro-Richard v. anti-Richard debate? No. It's not a traditional history, and should not be taken as such. It is a very fun detective story that opens up a fascinating window of how and why historians work, and will inspire anyone who reads it to think twice before taking any history at face value.

Although anyone who loves history will adore this book, I think that it would also be a great book for someone who DOESN'T like history, such as a high school student who is bored to tears trying to memorize lists of names and dates. This book is a fun and quick read that shows how history is not quite as dry or as simple as our textbooks always taught us.

Rating:
Summary: The Correct Portrait
Review: A book that is great fun. Unfortunately the portraic on the cover is not tho one the book is about. The correct one can be qbtained by going to the National Portrait Gallery London on line and calling up that of Richard III. It can be printed out and proves of value in enjoying the book.

Rating:
Summary: A Great Historical Mystery
Review: I first read this book many years ago, and it remains one of my favorite books ever. I just re-read it, and, though it was written in the 1950s, it does not feel dated. Only the length of Grant's recuperation (physical therapists will cringe at the length of time he is made to lie in bed) and the absence of computer resources make it seem a bit old.
In this book, Josephine Tey, a mystery novelist, acquires credibility in historical circles. She, using the conceit of her Grant character's being laid up and needing an occupation to keep him from boredom, presents the revisionist theory of the fate of the "Princes in the Tower" in an extremely readable, interesting way. It is history presented as fiction. The revisionists believe that Richard III has gotten a bad rap from the Tudors and their tame historians and that he was framed for the death of the princes. Certainly, we end Tey's book being totally in accord with her, and Grant's, opinions.
If you want some other reading to follow up after this book, I strongly recommend that you read "Royal Blood" by Bertram Fields and that you read Appendices I and II of Paul Murray Kendall's "Richard III". Those appendices deal with the accuracy (or, rather, inaccuracy) of historical sources and with the death of the princes in the tower.
I have just sent this book, with Field's book, to my law student daughter. I recommended it to her, and I recommend it to anyone who enjoys mysteries and history.

Rating:
Summary: More history than mystery - but extremely well done
Review: It's a little deceiving to consider this book a mystery novel in the traditional sense; it's much more of an historical study. The topic itself is fascinating: was Richard III the murdering, amoral monster that Shakespeare made him out to be, or was he merely misunderstood? Tey makes a cogent and compelling argument that Richard did not, in fact, murder his young nephews in the Tower of London, nor possess the negative qualities so often ascribed to him. Her historical analysis is cleverly contained in a contemporary setting; Inspector Alan Grant of Scotland Yard is laid up in hospital and sets his mind to figuring out the conundrum of Richard III while he recuperates. Grant enlists the help of a young American researcher; dialogues between the two and Grant's internal analysis form the "action" or "plot" of the story. If you are in the mood for a classic whodunit, a body in library-type mystery, this is not your cup of tea -- no one in Grant's time is murdered and his "solving" of the crime is only speculation. If you like history and have an open mind about Richard III, this is a well-written, well-researched and well-argued book. One thing I had trouble with was the author's assumption that the reader is familiar with much more of English history than I was, so at times, I was a bit overwhelmed by the names and references I didn't always get. If, after finishing "Daughter of Time," you're interested in learning more about Richard III, try "Royal Blood," by Bertram Fields as a good and thorough overview, with arguments both pro- and anti-Richard set forth.

Rating:
Summary: Scotland Yard is on the Case!
Review: Mysteries are usually not my proverbial cup of tea, however the premise of this story is, the Scotland Yard detective layed-up in hospital, devealing into a historical mystery, to keep bordam at bay. After looking at some photographs and portraits, he is drawn by a portrait of Richard III, and recalls the story of the murder of the Princes in the Tower, which has been historically laid at his feet.
While this book was written I think in the 1950s and is not up to our modern CSI style of whodunnit, it does show a more modern way of thinking about motives, and questioning supposedly sound historical commentary.

Rating:
Summary: The Mystery of History
Review: Since the winner writes the history books, it's not surprising most people believe that Richard III was evil. According to Sir Thomas More and Shakespeare, he had various members of his family killed, including his poor little nephews, so that he could be king. It's important to remember that much of what we think we know about Richard was written during the reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I -- who were on the throne as the direct result of the defeat of Richard. To justify the Tudors (Henry's father, I believe) seizing power, Richard had to be cast as the bad guy. We may never know what actually happened, but Josephine Tey presents a different look into history using actual letters and documents from that time. It all starts with a modern-day homicide detective who prides himself on being able to read faces. When he sees Richard's portrait (without knowing who it is), he doesn't pick it as the face of an evil murderer. I've seen Richard's portrait in the National Portrait Gallery in London -- and I think Tey's character, although fictional, may be on to something.

Rating:
Summary: A tiny and refreshing novel
Review: The Daughter of Time is a pleasant mixture of mystery novel and revisionist history. The book itself is thin, and there isn't much of a plot to the story, but the descriptive prose is wonderful and the characters really do seem real (even if rather dull).

The premise is that an injured homicide detective is recouperating in a London hospital and, out of boredom, begins to read up on the infamous Richard III. After a few selections he begins to suspect that Richard's infamy may not be well-deserved, so he enlists the support of a young amateur research historian (a friend of an acquaintance) to unravel this "mystery." There are no surprises throughout the evolution of the story; it plods along just as you would expect, but it is never boring. The realistic modern characters and the intriguing story of the Yorks and Tudors combine for an entertaining and refreshing work of short fiction. It is a fun little book that would be well-placed in high school English classes, where it would easily foster interest in both literature and history.

Rating:
Summary: History or hogwash?
Review: The mystery of the two small nephews of Richard III of England, supposedly murdered on his orders, has become the stuff of British history. Richard has come down to us as an evil monarch, most notably through Shakespeare's eponymous drama and the writings of Thomas More. But Shakespeare wrote his play based on More's book, and More was hardly a reliable eyewitness to events, being only five years old when they happened. In this highly original novel, Josephine Tey explores the mystery of whodunit from the point of view of a fictional detective, Alan Grant, laid up from a bad fall and bored out of his gourd; Grant tackles the problem from the cui bono standpoint, namely, who benefitted most from the young princes' murder? It surely wasn't Richard, who probably had more to lose than to gain from their deaths; but it did benefit the one whom Tey strongly suspects did have the princes put out of the way, one who had no legitimate claim to the crown at all. Grant and his young American research associate, Brent Carradine, work out the puzzle step by step, coming to a conclusion that satisfies them both. Whether or not it will satisfy the reader will depend on if the reader can let go of some preconceptions that have become engraved in stone. Grant asks himself, can 400,000 history books be wrong? They probably can, given that history is written by the winners, and Richard III ended his days as one of history's major losers. If Richard was indeed innocent, then whoever is guilty of having the princes murdered had everything to gain from traducing Richard's reputation to secure his own place in history and on the British throne. Tey's book is a well-written, engaging detective novel shedding light in some of the darker corners of the history of the kings of Britain.