Summary: Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant is intrigued by a portrait of Richard III. Could such a sensitive face actually belong to a heinous villain — a king who killed his brother's children to secure his crown? Grant seeks what kind of man Richard was and who in fact killed the princes in the tower.
MY THOUGHTS:
This vintage book was first published in 1951. I've seen it praised as fascinating and remarkable so it seemed a good investment for $3 at one my favorite coastal secondhand bookshops.
It all takes place from one hospital bed. Police Detective Alan Grant is convalescing from a broken leg. He's feeling restless and irritable, so his friend, Marta, brings him a packet full of assorted historical portraits from the National Gallery. She knows that Alan is fascinated by the nuances of faces and hopes to cheer him up for a few hours.
What nobody expects, least of all Grant himself, is that he'll end up applying modern criminology methods to 500-year-old evidence, to prove to his own satisfaction that Richard III, the final king of the Plantagenet dynasty, couldn't have possibly committed the appalling crime he is renowned for.
The portrait of Richard by an anonymous artist first triggers Grant's consuming quest. He perceives no traces of villainy one might expect, even given the brutal fifteenth century when royalty often seemed to lash out at their relatives, letting political ambition turn them vicious. Instead, he senses a young man of sensitivity, mildness, even kindness.
Yet the annals of history, including every school text book, seems crystal clear. Richard is conceived of as the wizened, hunch-backed younger brother of the handsome, heroic, and athletic Edward IV. As the legend goes, after Edward's death, Richard arranged to have Edward's young kids, his own two nephews, discreetly smothered to death in the Tower of London. That is certainly what I'd always heard. As Alan Grant puts it, 'The faithful and patient small brother had turned into a monster.'
Yet the deeper Grant delves, the more overwhelmingly this appears to be false. Since this is not the sort of novel to suffer from revealing plot spoilers, I'll outline his threefold conclusions in a nutshell.
Firstly the two little boys had been declared illegitimate offspring, so Richard had no motive to go to the trouble of organizing, then covering up their murder. Since he was already crowned king at the time, their existence posed absolutely no threat to his reign. This in itself contradicts what is in the history book on my shelf, that Richard was merely 'Protector' until his eldest nephew came of age to rule.
Secondly no evidence of the princes' absence or murder were ever recorded during Richard's actual reign. The nasty rumors circulated after he was killed and unable to defend himself. In fact, all of Richard's recorded history concerning his brother, Edward, reveals an extremely loyal and devoted supporter.
Thirdly and perhaps most chilling, all of the subsequent evidence about Richard that we regard as gospel truth originated from Tudor sources, who aimed to discredit Richard. As well they might! Throughout this story Alan Grant dredges up enough condemning evidence that they, in the person of Henry VII at the time, might have been the real villains.
Sir Thomas More's definitive account of Richard's reign was commissioned by the Tudors. Therefore Alan Grant rejects it as not merely biased propaganda but a dirty smear campaign brimful with outright lies. And subsequently other authors, including Holinshed and Shakespeare, believed its veracity and unknowingly added to the heinous and untrue character assassination of an innocent man.
(Not to mention their own biases. I discovered a quote from Geoffrey Doran of the Royal Shakespeare Company who says, 'You have to remember Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I and her granddad bumped off Richard III.' Hence, his 'histories' may be taken with a grain of salt anyway.)
Here is what sends shivers down my spine. Has Josephine Tey, in writing this novel, proven Richard's innocence beyond a doubt? Probably not, although she's definitely made the waters murky. But what she has done, as far as I'm concerned, is whispered the disquieting suggestion that even classic texts we consider watertight may be full of pernicious, misleading holes. Might this apply to generations of school text books? Sure, why not.
Conspiracy theorist or principled whistle-blower? You read it and make up your own minds. I'm keeping neutral, for Grant, and his creator Tey, are equally biased on Richard's side, of course. But I do find myself getting a bit hot under the collar since reading this, whenever I consider how generations of students are taught that Richard III was proven beyond a doubt to be a murderous crook.
On the whole, The Daughter of Time is history-heavy, reasonably slow moving, dry in spots, and probably aimed at far nerdier history buffs than myself, but I found it well worth a read. It does my head in, because I love certainty, but perhaps we need the occasional wake-up call not to be herd-like readers.
🌟🌟🌟






