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

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by 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?

Too much fun! I think the controversy of the historical mystery is relevant to the book too. One of my favorite things about reading is the side adventures that it takes you on which enrich the experience and enhance your learning and perspectives in unexpected ways.

Originally Posted by 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.

Perhaps she had an attraction to the subject of people she believed history had not represented fairly. Wikipedia says:

Her only non-fiction book, Claverhouse, was written as a vindication of someone she perceived to be a libeled hero: "It is strange that a man whose life was so simple in pattern and so forthright in spirit should have become a peg for every legend, bloody or brave, that belonged to his time."

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

This is an interesting article about the potential use of DNA to evaluate the bones.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8441936.html

Thanks for the interesting article, Bookworm_Girl. Obtaining the DNA match bodes well for solving the mystery at a later date, when there’s less sensitivity about the implications.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Me too, and now I wonder if I’ve taken Tey all wrong? Making up your sources is a hanging offence in most contexts. But it’s perfectly legit in fiction. Maybe she just thought it would be fun topic for an novel, and was pretty casual about the research. She could be looking down highly amused to see people treat the novel like an academic paper.

Ah, the joke's on us, perhaps. It is one reason why I'm not a big fan of fictionalised stuff like this - and like the Philippa Gregory book I'm reading now - unless you're an expert in the field you don't know where the author parted ways with reality.

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

[...] Perhaps she had an attraction to the subject of people she believed history had not represented fairly. Wikipedia says:

That's an interesting thought. And whatever we might make of the story now, it certainly proved an effective way of getting her point across when she published it. That is one of the advantages that fiction has over non-fiction: when it works it can reach a lot more people.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Me too, and now I wonder if I’ve taken Tey all wrong? Making up your sources is a hanging offence in most contexts. But it’s perfectly legit in fiction. Maybe she just thought it would be fun topic for an novel, and was pretty casual about the research. She could be looking down highly amused to see people treat the novel like an academic paper.

I don't think it's legit in the way Tey did it. I've read mysteries where someone is researching a past event or person and, eureka! finds hitherto unknown evidence that upends the common wisdom. I think that's fine; the author is clearly inventing the new evidence and only a foolish reader would think it's real. Tey, though, jumbled her invented sources and real ones such that a reader doesn't know which is which without further research. It's easy enough for us these days to use Google or check Wikipedia, but in 1951, how many people were hoodwinked?

I'm too lazy to try to find what historians at the time of publication had to say about Tey's book, but if I were a historian, I think I'd've been outraged.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Me too, and now I wonder if I’ve taken Tey all wrong? Making up your sources is a hanging offence in most contexts. But it’s perfectly legit in fiction. Maybe she just thought it would be fun topic for an novel, and was pretty casual about the research. She could be looking down highly amused to see people treat the novel like an academic paper.

Tey was writing entertaining fiction, and the novel she invented is part of the entertainment. Another was a reference to Grant knowing a lot about Richard II because he had seen Gordon Daviot’s play, Richard of Bordeaux four times. This is both a comment on Grant thinking he knows a lot about a character because he has seen a play, and also an “in” joke for those who happen to know that Daviot was another of her pen names (as was Tey).

The play however was real and a huge success. It made John Gielgud’s name as an actor.

And if Grant is to be criticised for reading a novel and thinking it informative, what does that say about us, reading Tey, Gregory et al?

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

This is an interesting article about the potential use of DNA to evaluate the bones.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8441936.html

Thanks for this interesting item, Bookworm-Girl. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to read the article - it wanted me to be a subscriber.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

This is an interesting article about the potential use of DNA to evaluate the bones.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8441936.html

Thanks Bookworm_Girl , I hope they can finally find out if the bones are the Princes now. I guess we have to wait until someone either the present Queen or future Kings in line for the throne. Charles, William, George. Will give the go ahead for the DNA tests to be done. It's been a mystery for centuries and the Kingdom and world want to know. Exciting stuff !

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't think it's legit in the way Tey did it. I've read mysteries where someone is researching a past event or person and, eureka! finds hitherto unknown evidence that upends the common wisdom. I think that's fine; the author is clearly inventing the new evidence and only a foolish reader would think it's real. Tey, though, jumbled her invented sources and real ones such that a reader doesn't know which is which without further research. It's easy enough for us these days to use Google or check Wikipedia, but in 1951, how many people were hoodwinked?

I'm too lazy to try to find what historians at the time of publication had to say about Tey's book, but if I were a historian, I think I'd've been outraged.

I feel a bit silly writing pages of notes, factchecking & refuting fictional sources I guess that’s what I get for taking myself too seriously!

But you raise a very interesting point. What did historians think at the time of the publication? I’ve been trying to find some comment on that, but haven’t found anything far.

However, in looking, I came across a short article that I thought was interesting. The author offers a very factual defence against the notion that Henry IV killed the princes. I found it quite persuasive. The comments are interesting too - some of the people who commented favourably on article are published authors from reputable sources.

I don’t want to flog a dead horse, but in case anyone is interested the link is https://nathenamin.com/2012/09/13/th...for-henry-vii/

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Tey was writing entertaining fiction, and the novel she invented is part of the entertainment. Another was a reference to Grant knowing a lot about Richard II because he had seen Gordon Daviot’s play, Richard of Bordeaux four times. This is both a comment on Grant thinking he knows a lot about a character because he has seen a play, and also an “in” joke for those who happen to know that Daviot was another of her pen names (as was Tey).

The play however was real and a huge success. It made John Gielgud’s name as an actor.

And if Grant is to be criticised for reading a novel and thinking it informative, what does that say about us, reading Tey, Gregory et al?

That’s fun! Aren’t you sharp Bookpossum, catching all of her hints and double meanings Tey was writing entertaining fiction; a glance at this thread confirms how engaging it is.

[Wearever]

Tey is full of contradictions in this book. I like Issybird & Catlady and others didn't like the way Tey said the Boston Massacre was no big deal, it was a big deal. Also the way she made up sources for Grant to quote from taking readers for granted ( pun intended ) Or calling criminals silly. I was irked but figured she was biased and went on from there. She then uses an American working on becoming an historian and he gives correct information back to Grant. She may have been amused while writing this. She did do some things right. The title is perfect and back in 1951 she had no idea how it would go. A society that found Richard III bones. How DNA would probably solve the greatest mystery in Britain. She just introduced doubt while writing a fictional book. The rest just happened.

Edit : Punctuation

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Victoria

That’s fun! Aren’t you sharp Bookpossum, catching all of her hints and double meanings Tey was writing entertaining fiction; a glance at this thread confirms how engaging it is.

That's true very clever Book Possum !

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Thanks for this interesting item, Bookworm-Girl. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to read the article - it wanted me to be a subscriber.

Weird. I’m not a subscriber to the Independent. it was interesting because it talks about what they could do with DNA testing of Richard’s bones and the Prince’s bones if they were granted access and what combinations of theories they could support or refute now that they have DNA from a known ancestor.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl

Weird. I’m not a subscriber to the Independent. it was interesting because it talks about what they could do with DNA testing of Richard’s bones and the Prince’s bones if they were granted access and what combinations of theories they could support or refute now that they have DNA from a known ancestor.

I just had another go, and this time it worked, so obviously my computer was just having a hissy fit! Thanks again - intriguing stuff, isn't it.

[Bookpossum]

Catlady, I have just had a hugely entertaining afternoon watching those videos of the trial that you found - thank you! The very best part was watching historian David Starkey, whom I have seen in more recent years pontificating about the Tudors on TV, being quite astoundingly rude and arrogant towards the lawyer for the defence.

The lawyer's handling of him, incredibly polite but getting his name wrong, and then at the end calling him Mr Starkey and being corrected that it was Dr Starkey, was a delight to watch.

It comes in the third section for anyone who wants to have a look. Highly recommended!

[gmw]

The White Queen by Philippa Gregory. I figure it's appropriate (or not too inappropriate) to offer my review of it here, as part of our discussion of the historical mystery.

Gregory freely admits, in the acknowledgements at the back, "There is more fiction in this novel than in my previous ones, since we are further back in time than the Tudors, and the record is more patchy. Also, this was a country at war and many decisions were taken on the spot, leaving no documentary record." And I note that Gregory has been criticised for taking liberties even with the Tudors.

My first comment is: My goodness, couldn't anyone back then come up with names other than Edward, Richard, George, Elizabeth and Margaret? Keeping track of them all is a work in itself.

The book ends quite abruptly: Henry Tudor has just landed with his army, and Richard III is going out to meet him; Bosworth Field is still to happen. It is also rather less than definite about the princes in the tower than I thought it might be - but maybe that was for the best.

The following is in spoilers in case people wanting to read this would rather not know specific details imagined in the book:

Spoiler:

Gregory has it that:

When Richard III sends emissaries to meet with Elizabeth Woodville in sanctuary, requesting that she release her young son Richard to join her son Edward in the Tower (at this point the coronation is supposedly still on and young Richard is invited to witness it) she instead sends a pageboy that she and her eldest daughter have been training for the part. Her real son Richard she sends off into hiding in Flanders - the name Perkin is mentioned as a nickname (this appears to be based on possibilities suggested by historian David Baldwin).

There is strong suggestion that Richard III is unlikely to have killed Edward V (although I remain unconvinced) - and indeed the story has him deny such an act to Elizabeth, claiming he didn't need to kill them (yeah, yeah, like that ever stopped any of this blood-thirsty bunch). It is suggested that either the Duke of Buckingham and/or Margaret Beaufort had good reason to kill the boys; that, while pretending to collaborate with Elizabeth Woodville against Richard III, they were in fact preparing the way for their own plans (Buckingham for himself, Beaufort for her son).

The fact that the boys disappearance sort of melted into the background and never raises a big stir is explained quite well. Because of everything else going on, it took a long time for their disappearance to be confirmed - and even then each party assumed one of the other parties had take the boys off somewhere. By the time it seemed certain that they must be dead, most of the relevant decisions had already been made. (Whether the timing is exactly as described in this book is, I think, open to question, but it works well as presented.)

Elizabeth of York (Elizabeth Woodville's daughter) is seen to fall in love with Richard III and the two plan to marry (apparently there really were rumours to this effect at the time), and at the same time Henry Tudor is declaring he will marry her when he takes the throne - as agreed in private between Elizabeth Woodville and Margaret Beaufort. (I guess royalty and incest go together to some extent, but Richard and his niece? Can the niece really overlook Richard usurping the crown from her brother? I'm having some trouble with that ... but "the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" - thank you, L.P. Hartley.)

The book has various little bits of magic - the Elizabeth Woodville's mother is Jacquetta of Luxembourg whose family claims to be descended from a water deity named Melusine. I think these parts are very neatly handled; the magic is suggested but could as well be coincidence, so the idea of witchcraft - rumoured at the time - is given a sort of credence without turning the book into a complete fantasy.

What I particularly liked in the book was the suggestion - without it ever really saying - that Richard's grab for the throne might never have happened if he and Elizabeth Woodville had been able to trust one another. All the evidence, even in this story, was that Richard III was truly loyal to his brother Edward IV. Edward had asked Richard to be Lord Protector, but Elizabeth Woodville made it impossible for Richard to do this peaceably. She effectively pushed him into claiming the throne or forfeiting his power completely. Whether he actually killed the boys is almost incidental.

So Gregory's account, while not completely convincing, and not answering everything, I thought did a good job of describing the situation in what felt like a fairly realistic manner. It reservedly supports the Tey/Grant hypothesis that Richard III was not guilty, and may even have been a good guy, while offering various alternative explanations. And while the book was told (mostly) in the first-person from Elizabeth Woodville's perspective, I thought it did a clever job of showing where Woodville was being hypocritical (when something was desperately unfair to her, but should be expected as the fortunes of war when happened to others, and that sort of thing).

I don't think I'm up for the whole collection, but overall I liked this book. It is an entertaining way to view this part of history.