New Leaf April 2019 Discussion • The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by gmw

One of the big mysteries, which if solved may reveal the guilty party, is the resounding silence surrounding the boys' disappearance. According to Wikipedia: "Only one contemporary narrative account of the boys' time in the tower exists: that of Dominic Mancini. Mancini's account was not discovered until 1934, in the Municipal Library in Lille."

I find it very strange that there has not been something more. Without it, we don't even know exactly when the boys disappeared, which makes it rather difficult to do much finger pointing.

I have been dipping into Markham. Here is some possible evidence:

“We find, then, that the two young sons of Edward IV. went to reside in the royal lodgings of the Tower in June 1483. The statement put forth by Henry VII. is that they were murdered there in the following August. But there are two pieces of evidence, one of them positive evidence, that they were alive throughout the reign of Richard III.

In the orders for King Richard's household dated after the death of his own son, children are mentioned of such high rank that they were to be served before all other Lords. The only children who could occupy such a position were the sons of Edward IV. and the son of Clarence. The conclusion must be that all his nephews were members of his household, and that they were only sent to Sheriff Hutton and to the Tower when danger threatened the realm from the invasion of Henry Tudor.

The other piece of evidence is found in a warrant in Rymer's 'Foedera,' dated March 9, 1485, to the following effect: it directs Henry Davy 'to deliver unto John Goddestande, footman unto the Lord Bastard, two doblets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown of cloth “of silk, one gown of cloth, two shirts, and two bonets.'[3] There are other warrants to pay for provisions. Dr. Lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants by suggesting that they referred to John of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of the King. But this boy is mentioned in Rymer's 'Foedera,' and is designated as a bastard son of the King[5] simply and not as a lord, for no such title belonged to him. Edward, on the other hand, although he was officially called a bastard, was also a lord. In his case the designation of Lord was correct. In the 'Wardrobe Account' he was called the Lord Edward; after the accession of his uncle.[6] The royal titles of Wales and Cornwall were no longer consistent or proper, and had indeed been transferred, in due course, to the King's son. But the earldoms of March and Pembroke, conferred on him by his father, still belonged to Edward. He would properly be styled the Lord Bastard, while John of Gloucester could not be and was not. There was only one 'Lord' Bastard.[7] The warrants, therefore, show that Edward was alive and well treated in March 1485, four months before the death of Richard III.”

Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.

As Carradine said, the evidence is often found in the account books rather than in "official" accounts.

[Bookworm_Girl]

That’s the main reason why the mystery is so intriguing today because there simply isn’t much contemporary evidence available. I’m surprised at how litttle credit is given to More’s writing. It’s the big point of Tey’s message suggesting that it was just gossip in a later era and actually written by someone else (Morton). However Weir argues that it was based on eye-witness accounts, including his own father who was a judge and present at some of the council meetings. In addition she argues that his writing is corroborated independently by some of the contemporary writing to give it further credibility.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Oh my. I missed Bookpossum’s long message. I feel so behind everyone by the time I get home from work in the evening, even though Charlie and Dazrin are in my same time zone. Bookpossum’s thinking about dinner Thursday and I’m falling asleep while typing this on Wednesday night!

[Bookpossum]

You have to run to keep up with us Australians!

That's interesting about Weir's comments on the Thomas More document. I shall see what Sir Clements has to say.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

[..] Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.

As Carradine said, the evidence is often found in the account books rather than in "official" accounts.

The first part (June 1483, conceivably fits in with other assumptions of Richard's guilt - as Wikipedia (referencing A.J. Pollard) says: 'On 25 June [1483], "a group of lords, knights and gentlemen" petitioned Richard to take the throne.' So there seems no reason why the princes may not have been treated as princes earlier in that same month.

The next part - from the 'Foedera', is a little more convincing, but this is a work of transcription done much later (1704..1735), so I'm not sure how much trust I'd put into subtleties of meaning. As you said, it is possible evidence, the sort of thing that might add weight if there were other evidence being weighed.

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

That’s the main reason why the mystery is so intriguing today because there simply isn’t much contemporary evidence available. I’m surprised at how litttle credit is given to More’s writing. It’s the big point of Tey’s message suggesting that it was just gossip in a later era and actually written by someone else (Morton). However Weir argues that it was based on eye-witness accounts, including his own father who was a judge and present at some of the council meetings. In addition she argues that his writing is corroborated independently by some of the contemporary writing to give it further credibility.

This is interesting to hear - I really must get a copy of Weir's work. I'm not much of a fan of More - especially not since watching A History of Britain. Not that I was a fan of Henry VIII, either, but More struck me as the most annoyingly sanctimonious ... Anyway. It would be nice to think that More's history had some credibility, if only so that we can continue to enjoy Shakespeare with a clear conscience.

[Bookpossum]

Okay, here's Markham on that document:

“By far the most important of the original authorities, and the one on which all subsequent history has been based, is Archbishop Morton. His narrative is contained in the 'History of Richard III.,' erroneously attributed to Sir Thomas More, who was in Morton's household when a boy. This work first appeared in Hardyng's Chronicle, printed by Grafton in 1543. It was embodied in Hall's Chronicle, and copied by Holinshed. Fourteen years after its publication, another and somewhat different version was brought out by Rastell in 1557. Rastell was related to Sir Thomas More, and he alleged that his version was taken from a manuscript in More's handwriting written about 1513. A Latin version, written long before its publication, was printed at Louvain in 1566, with various additions to the imaginary speeches, and an address to Henry VIII. and the Earl of Surrey. Sir George Buck[3] and Sir John Harington[4] had heard “that the work was written by Morton. The Latin version could not have been, for it is addressed to Henry VIII., and Morton died in 1500.

The history, as we have it, contains long speeches and dialogues which must have been fabricated by the writer. The narrative from the death of Edward IV. to the accession of Richard was certainly written or dictated by Morton, for no one else could have been cognizant of some of the facts. The title given by the publisher is misleading. It is not a 'history of Richard III.,' but a very detailed narrative of the events from his brother's death to his own accession, covering a period of less than three months. It ends abruptly at a point just before the date of Morton's flight from England. His personal knowledge ceased with his departure, and here the story suddenly comes to an end. He was evidently acquainted personally with every detail, and he possessed an exceptionally accurate memory.[5] The errors and alterations of dates in the narrative must consequently have been made intentionally and with an object. Morton's character and the value of his testimony will be discussed more fully in a future chapter. The story of the murder of the young princes at the end of the book cannot have been written by Morton, for it alludes to events which happened after October 12, 1500, the date of that prelate's death. The outline of the story of the murder was no doubt inspired, as Lord Bacon shrewdly suspected, by Henry VII. himself.

Rastell assumed that the English version of this 'History of Richard III.' was composed by Sir Thomas More because a copy in his handwriting was found among his papers. The previous publication by Grafton proves that there were other copies abroad, differing slightly from each other, and there is no reason for assuming that the copy in More's handwriting was the original. Indeed there is evidence that it was not. ”

Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.

Sorry that is so long, but I think it covers some important points. Does Weir give evidence of her claim that the document is by More, who the eye-witnesses were, and so on?

[Bookpossum]

We seem to be wandering away from talking about Tey's book, and I'm certainly partly responsible for that!

Do we want to drag ourselves back to the actual book, or are we having too much fun leading ourselves astray?

[gmw]

I assumed we would end up having the two essentially separate conversations. For me at least, the conversation about the historical mystery is the more interesting one.

It seems to me that Tey wrote with an agenda. While it is hazardous to do so, I am inclined ascribe Grant's opinions of historians to the author. It's the sort of opinion that outsiders of any speciality subject tend to carry; people are inclined to forget there are good reasons why subjects specialise. Historians may well be best advised to look to primary sources, but outsiders rely on specialists to provide useful, predigested, secondary sources so we don't have to spend the years that it takes to make qualified assessments of primary sources.

I don't like Grant, and I don't trust Tey to present the information in an unbiased manner. And I could argue: Why should she? This is fiction, the priority may well be entertainment rather than historical accuracy. I doubt whether Shakespeare had compunctions about adjusting history to fit with his plays (although it appears that Morton/More/Henry-VII have already managed to do some of this for him).

For the historical mystery, I think Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III makes the whole thing all the more interesting and poignant. Now we can pick a side and feel as if we know what it is we are defending.

Philippa Gregory's version - The White Queen - is turning out to be an entertaining read (I should be finished already but work has been getting in the way). But so far there has been little in it worthy of addition to our conversation here. (So far in my reading the second son has not yet been born - still a hundred pages to go. First person, present tense, would not have been my first choice for this, but it is an interesting way to view the history.)


For my part, I'm happy for people to share what they've found out about the historical mystery; I'm very pleased to learn I'm not the only one this stirred to wider research, but I don't have much more to say about Tey's book that you don't already know, or can't guess .

[Bookpossum]

I agree - Tey was writing fiction, and could be as partisan as she liked.

I dug out Markham from Gutenberg as I read somewhere that his book was her source material, and I was interested to see how much he was offering in the way of document references (a lot) as opposed to just telling us the story. Yes of course, he has an axe to grind too, but from a quick look through, he does try to put forward both sides of the case, mainly of course so he can knock down the negative stories.

Interestingly, he wasn't a professional historian, but a geographer and quite involved with Antactic exploration and Scott in particular.

I should try to get hold of Weir, to see what she has to say on the other side.

[gmw]

Yes, I thought Markham's phrasing (eg: "Dr. Lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants") did reveal some partisanship. But he from what you've posted, he seems to have been fairly thorough.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I have been dipping into Markham. Here is some possible evidence:

“We find, then, that the two young sons of Edward IV. went to reside in the royal lodgings of the Tower in June 1483. The statement put forth by Henry VII. is that they were murdered there in the following August. But there are two pieces of evidence, one of them positive evidence, that they were alive throughout the reign of Richard III.

In the orders for King Richard's household dated after the death of his own son, children are mentioned of such high rank that they were to be served before all other Lords. The only children who could occupy such a position were the sons of Edward IV. and the son of Clarence. The conclusion must be that all his nephews were members of his household, and that they were only sent to Sheriff Hutton and to the Tower when danger threatened the realm from the invasion of Henry Tudor.

The other piece of evidence is found in a warrant in Rymer's 'Foedera,' dated March 9, 1485, to the following effect: it directs Henry Davy 'to deliver unto John Goddestande, footman unto the Lord Bastard, two doblets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown of cloth “of silk, one gown of cloth, two shirts, and two bonets.'[3] There are other warrants to pay for provisions. Dr. Lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants by suggesting that they referred to John of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of the King. But this boy is mentioned in Rymer's 'Foedera,' and is designated as a bastard son of the King[5] simply and not as a lord, for no such title belonged to him. Edward, on the other hand, although he was officially called a bastard, was also a lord. In his case the designation of Lord was correct. In the 'Wardrobe Account' he was called the Lord Edward; after the accession of his uncle.[6] The royal titles of Wales and Cornwall were no longer consistent or proper, and had indeed been transferred, in due course, to the King's son. But the earldoms of March and Pembroke, conferred on him by his father, still belonged to Edward. He would properly be styled the Lord Bastard, while John of Gloucester could not be and was not. There was only one 'Lord' Bastard.[7] The warrants, therefore, show that Edward was alive and well treated in March 1485, four months before the death of Richard III.”

Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.

As Carradine said, the evidence is often found in the account books rather than in "official" accounts.

I found this part very interesting also, it's mentioned in Weirs book as well. I think would enjoy reading Weir's book also Bookpossum. Carridene I thought gave some of the best clues more so than Grant. He gave dates and where to look.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Oh my. I missed Bookpossum’s long message. I feel so behind everyone by the time I get home from work in the evening, even though Charlie and Dazrin are in my same time zone. Bookpossum’s thinking about dinner Thursday and I’m falling asleep while typing this on Wednesday night!

Same for me, I falling behind, but I know even if I post late in the evening I know the Australians will see it. Trying to keep up on the east coast. I'll only get busier as the holiday weekend approaches.

[issybird]

I loved this as an adolescent, but as I feared, it didn't hold up on this reading. Sometimes that doesn't matter to me (Scarlet Pimpernel), but it did in this case.

Originally Posted by gmw

and I don't trust Tey to present the information in an unbiased manner.

Bringing this back around to the book a bit, I'll say that my antennae went up and stayed up when Carradine mentioned the Boston Massacre as an example where popular history has got it wrong. No big deal, he said, and only four "casualties."

Well, it was a big deal. Think Kent State, but with more deaths and by occupying soldiers. Armed troops firing on an unarmed crowd without orders. Eleven people were hit, which I make out as eleven casualties, five died in the immediate aftermath and a sixth, who was crippled, died as a result some years later.

So yeah, I thought Tey couldn't be trusted if she felt she had to misrepresent American history to make her point - or if she couldn't be bothered to get it right. Either is damning.

I thought the book's exposition was pretty clunky, essentially lose/lose. Major info dumps linked together by unrealistic conversation. The info dumps are fine if it's history; that's what history is, but not very artful as fiction. I found it telling in a way that Tey quoted large swaths of Rose of Raby, as if such highly fictionalized history, complete with conversations and thoughts, qualified as one of those primary sources. Essentially she borrowed what served her case, no matter the provenance. All sorts of unsupported allegations were strung together with such phrases as, "he might have," "he must have," "he may have" and "he would have."

Grant's attitude toward historians (except those he agreed with), ah, Rose of Raby! have been sufficiently skewered, so I'll end with a quote from him on the nature of criminality as reason why Richard wasn't criminal. "The criminal mind is essentially a silly one." Well, Q.E.D.! I bet the criminal masterminds in London would have laughed themselves silly over that one.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

I have been dipping into Markham. Here is some possible evidence:

“We find, then, that the two young sons of Edward IV. went to reside in the royal lodgings of the Tower in June 1483. The statement put forth by Henry VII. is that they were murdered there in the following August. But there are two pieces of evidence, one of them positive evidence, that they were alive throughout the reign of Richard III.

In the orders for King Richard's household dated after the death of his own son, children are mentioned of such high rank that they were to be served before all other Lords. The only children who could occupy such a position were the sons of Edward IV. and the son of Clarence. The conclusion must be that all his nephews were members of his household, and that they were only sent to Sheriff Hutton and to the Tower when danger threatened the realm from the invasion of Henry Tudor.

The other piece of evidence is found in a warrant in Rymer's 'Foedera,' dated March 9, 1485, to the following effect: it directs Henry Davy 'to deliver unto John Goddestande, footman unto the Lord Bastard, two doblets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown of cloth “of silk, one gown of cloth, two shirts, and two bonets.'[3] There are other warrants to pay for provisions. Dr. Lingard[4] tried to destroy the significance of these warrants by suggesting that they referred to John of Gloucester, an illegitimate son of the King. But this boy is mentioned in Rymer's 'Foedera,' and is designated as a bastard son of the King[5] simply and not as a lord, for no such title belonged to him. Edward, on the other hand, although he was officially called a bastard, was also a lord. In his case the designation of Lord was correct. In the 'Wardrobe Account' he was called the Lord Edward; after the accession of his uncle.[6] The royal titles of Wales and Cornwall were no longer consistent or proper, and had indeed been transferred, in due course, to the King's son. But the earldoms of March and Pembroke, conferred on him by his father, still belonged to Edward. He would properly be styled the Lord Bastard, while John of Gloucester could not be and was not. There was only one 'Lord' Bastard.[7] The warrants, therefore, show that Edward was alive and well treated in March 1485, four months before the death of Richard III.”

Excerpt From: Markham, Sir Clements R. “Richard III: His Life & Character / Reviewed in the light of recent research.” iBooks.

As Carradine said, the evidence is often found in the account books rather than in "official" accounts.

Weir's counterargument:

Some revisionists, notably Sir Clements Markham and Jeremy Potter, have asserted that, when Richard III established a household at Sheriff Hutton Castle, Yorkshire, in 1484 for his nephew John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln and newly-appointed President of the Council of the North, the Princes were still alive and were secretly moved there. This assertion rests on the evidence of two warrants in Harleian MS. 433 in the British Library. One, dated 23rd July, 1484, refers to Lincoln and Lord Morley being at breakfast with each other and ‘the children together’ at another breakfast. The second, dated 9th March, 1485, is a warrant to Henry Davy to deliver two doublets of silk, one jacket of silk, one gown, two shirts and two bonnets to ‘the Lord Bastard’, a title used for the deposed Edward V in the Wardrobe Accounts. Elsewhere in official documents the former King is called ‘Edward Bastard’.

There were royal children at Sheriff Hutton: the King had sent young Warwick there and probably his sister Margaret also. It is possible that the four younger daughters of Edward IV were at some time in residence too, as well as the King’s bastard son, John of Gloucester – to whom the second warrant most probably refers. John was not a lord in the official sense, but as the King’s natural son he was styled as such out of courtesy. There is nothing to suggest that the Princes were ever at Sheriff Hutton. If they had been, many people would have known about it.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Oh my. I missed Bookpossum’s long message. I feel so behind everyone by the time I get home from work in the evening, even though Charlie and Dazrin are in my same time zone. Bookpossum’s thinking about dinner Thursday and I’m falling asleep while typing this on Wednesday night!

Originally Posted by Wearever

Same for me, I falling behind, but I know even if I post late in the evening I know the Australians will see it. Trying to keep up on the east coast. I'll only get busier as the holiday weekend approaches.

Me three I go to bed, and suddenly there’s a party

Thank you everyone, for all the great material you’re posting! It’s fascinating to hear opposing arguments. The more I read outside sources, the more agnostic I feel. I don’t think I could convict Richard without better proof.

There’s no evidence the boys were murdered. For example, they could have succumbed to a virus or infection. Children died regularly - Richard and Edward had several siblings that didn’t make it to adulthood. If it happened during an uprising, there may only have been a private funeral.

There were rumours that the boys were murdered. But rumours about royalty are omnipresent. An hour ago, I read in the grocery line that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are having a daughter. Last month it was twin boys.

I agree with Catlady the Richard stole the crown. The claim of a precontract is very shaky, with Edward and Eleanor both dead and Stillington the only witness. Tey’s portrayal of Stillington’s news as so unexpected and shocking that that Richard and the Council were forced to change direction is bogus. Claims of a ’precontract’ were a dime a dozen, and the most convenient grounds used to petition the church for an annulment.

Maybe Richard and his supporters sincerely believed it was safer to take the throne than leave the country in the hands of an easily controlled child. Once the Titulus Regius was introduced, Richard may have felt the matter was dealt with, and the fate of boys could be unrelated.

Or Richard could have seized the throne and eliminated his competition. For me, Tey’s strongest card was that the victor writes the history. I found her other arguments weak, and sometimes frustrating

So I’m stuck on the fence. If the boys were murdered, Richard seems the most likely suspect in terms of means, motive, and opportunity. But there are definitely other people with equally strong motives, so without better evidence, there’s room for doubt.