Title: The Daughter of Time
Rating: 5 Stars
I have to admit that I did not have a whole lot of hope for this book. It has appeared on several best mystery lists. The elevator speech for the novel just wasn’t all that enticing. Written in 1951, a detective, laid up in bed, tries to determine if Richard III was really the monster that killed his nephews.
That is really its plot. Scotland Yard detective, Alan Grant, accidentally stepped through a trap door, seriously injuring himself. He’s so injured, in fact, that he can only lay on his back. Staring at the ceiling tiles begins to drive him mad. One of his friends, just to divert him, gives him some pictures to look at. Being a detective, he’s most interested in the faces. He finds one face, in particular, to be fascinating. Later, he discovers it to be a portrait of Richard III.
Richard III, in case you’re not up on your English monarchies, is the true villain of all of the kings. He was the youngest son of the Duke of York. In the War of the Roses (between the Yorks and the Lancasters), his brother overthrew Henry VI and became Edward IV. Edward IV had two sons. Edward also had a younger brother named George that, at various times, served both sides during the War. Ultimately, Edward ordered George executed.
Edward himself unexpectedly died. Since his two sons were young, Edward named Richard as their Lord Protector. This possibly wasn’t all that great of an idea. The two young sons were locked into the London Tower and were never seen again. Meanwhile, Richard had Parliament pass a law declaring that the two boys were illegitimate (as a result of an earlier secret marriage that Edward had contracted). With Edward dead, George dead, and the two missing boys no longer in the succession, voila, Richard assumed the crown as Richard III.
It’s considered pretty much general knowledge that Richard ordered the two boys killed. Given Edward’s unexpected death, it was also suspected that Richard poisoned Edward. When Edward gave the order to execute George, it was believed that it was Richard that actually killed him. If you’re keeping score, that’s four very close relatives that Richard is accused of killing in his relentless pursuit of the crown.
On top of all of that, it was alleged that he was a bent over hunchback. Is it any wonder that all of England cheered when Henry Tudor came marching to rescue the people from such a monster? At the battle of Bosworth, Richard III became the last king in English history to die in battle. The victorious Henry became Henry VII.
Well, Grant is looking closely at the portrait of Richard III and he does not see a murderer. In fact, he sees a careworn man intent on serving his nation. Granted this is just a portrait, but Grant has a lot of faith in his ability to read faces. He just doesn’t see evil when he gazes at Richard.
Since he has abundant time and is about to go nuts with inaction, he decides to research Richard III. The same friend that loaned him the portrait knows that he can’t do it himself. She sends over an American named Brent Carradine, a talented historical researcher that happens to be at loose ends. The two of them dive into original historical sources to try to discover the truth.
I don’t know if I’ve sold this book very well. It is a strange book. Since Grant is immobile, all action necessarily takes place in one room. A good chunk of the book is Carradine reading notes to Grant of things that he’s discovered in his researches at the British Museum. Sometimes Carradine brings the documents in question. In that case, we’re treated to Grant reading them and taking notes himself. The drama, such as it is, is the conversation between Grant and Carradine as they share discoveries and make new connections.
The shocking thing is, it’s actually quite interesting and fun to read. It probably helps that it’s a slight novel coming in at around two hundred pages. Even so, I found myself completely engaged in their back and forth. I am a history geek. Not only that, but I’m a Shakespeare geek, and the evil, twisted Richard III is one of Shakespeare’s iconic roles. Therefore, reading about Richard III and how, hundreds of years later, we might be finding out that he possibly might have been a patsy for the Tudors is quite fascinating.
For more information, please read the book. However, here are some facts (and I did some very basic research on my own (thank you wiki) and they do appear to be real:
- Since the Parliament passed the act denying the children’s legitimacy, they were no longer in the line of succession, so they did not need to be killed.
- The boys’ mother stayed on friendly terms with Richard.
- There were other claimants to the throne that he left alone.
- The person that allegedly actually killed the boys was James Tyrell. His alleged confession has never been found. He was executed only in 1502, some twenty years after the boys were murdered.
So, who does benefit from the murder of the boys? Let’s take a look at some facts about Henry VII:
- Henry VII repealed Richard’s act that made the boys illegitimate. Therefore, if the boys were still alive, then they would have been ahead of Henry in the succession. He needed them to be dead.
- He did have Parliament pass an act condemning Richard. In that act there were all kinds of crimes assigned to Richard. However, the murders of the two boys, which would undoubtedly be the most shocking and severe, were not mentioned.
- The boys’ mother that was still hanging around Richard’s court? Well, she was sent to a nunnery shortly after Henry’s succession.
- Not only that, but Henry’s claim to the throne was shaky. Anyone else that possibly had a stronger claim were arrested, and ultimately executed. This was a man that did not take any chances when it came to possible threats to his crown.
- Most of the really bad stuff about Richard III comes from a book called The History of Richard III, written by Thomas More. The first thing is that it was written around 1513, some thirty years after Richard’s death. Not only that, but More was a Tudor man. He ended up a high ranking official for Henry VIII, Henry VII’s son. Now, to be fair, More ends up crossing Henry VIII (the whole not letting Henry get divorced thing) and losing his head as a result, but that’s decades later. It sure looks like More wrote a hit piece on Richard III on behalf of his patron.
Why would Shakespeare pile on with his dastardly characterization of Richard III? Well, Shakespeare wrote it around 1592. Who was on the throne then? Elizabeth I, Henry VII’s granddaughter. Given how sensitive she was about threats to her throne, it would behoove Shakespeare to stay on her good side by writing a stirring story of how her grandfather took on and overthrew the worst, most evil king ever.
Am I sold that Richard III was the victim of a massive smear campaign that was so effective that people believe it some 650 years later? Maybe not, but it sure was fun to think about.
dorkenstein 