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

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by gmw

. It seems to me that Tey wrote with an agenda. .....

I don't like Grant, ........ I don't have much more to say about Tey's book that you don't already know, or can't guess .

I don’t mean to play the devil’s advocate because I know you’ve tried Grant twice. But I’ll just mention that I decided to give it another try too, given how many folks here seem to enjoy his character. I just finished the last novel, The Singing Sands, and really enjoyed it. This time it was easy to empathize with Grant - he had humour, depth and character, and plenty of little grey cells. And I thought Tey’s writing was very good; lots of atmosphere and great observations about human nature.

Originally Posted by issybird

I loved this as an adolescent, but as I feared, it didn't hold up on this reading.

........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."

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."

Agreed - I was very taken aback when Tey had Carradine just casually throw away four deaths like that. It’s hard to imagine what she was thinking when she wrote that. Maybe coming through the WWII had blunted her feelings?

I realize it’s dangerous to rely on Wikipedia, but it sounds like she first fabricated, and then borrowed what served her case. According to Wikipedia, the Rose of Raby Grant was quoting from doesn’t even exist, nor the history book he read.

“Both Tanner's history and the novel are non-existent. It has been suggested that the title of the latter is derived from Guy Paget's 1937 biography of the same name.”

When I looked, I only found one other book entitled Rose of Raby, but it was published in 2011.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

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.

Private funeral? Their bones were found buried under the stairs; that's pretty private all right!

Quite convenient that they died at the same time. And did any of the revisionists find records of a doctor ever being called in to tend to them?

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.

I don't see how the fate of the boys could be unrelated to the usurpation of the crown. I don't believe in coincidence, and their disappearance is way too convenient. What reason would Richard have had to keep them alive when their continued existence was a potential threat to him?

Who are the other suspects? Henry Tudor? Well, since Tey/Grant cites the subsequent behavior of the princes' mother and sisters toward Richard as an exonerating factor, doesn't it follow that the marriage of a sister to Henry helps exonerate Henry?

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Private funeral? Their bones were found buried under the stairs; that's pretty private all right!

Touche - it does sound like quite a stretch put that way

We don’t know who those children under the stairs were, and I read that 2 other children had been found there as well. It’s possible they belonged to servants who couldn’t afford anything better for their own children who’d died. Many a child’s unmarked grave has been found on the grounds of old maternity homes, orphanages, etc.

What introduced some doubt for me, was reading that during renovations to the princes’ parents’ vault, there appeared to be two misidentified children. So that raises some legitimate questions - were the boys actually murdered?

Originally Posted by Catlady

Quite convenient that they died at the same time. And did any of the revisionists find records of a doctor ever being called in to tend to them?

The only account I’ve heard of was the doctor to Edward V, who said the boy believed he was going to killed.

But I don’t think it would be that unusual for several people in the same household to die in succession. They lived in close quarters, there were no vaccines and few effective treatments, etc.

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't see how the fate of the boys could be unrelated to the usurpation of the crown. I don't believe in coincidence, and their disappearance is way too convenient. What reason would Richard have had to keep them alive when their continued existence was a potential threat to him?

Who are the other suspects? Henry Tudor? Well, since Tey/Grant cites the subsequent behavior of the princes' mother and sisters toward Richard as an exonerating factor, doesn't it follow that the marriage of a sister to Henry helps exonerate Henry?

I do agree with you - Richard usurped the throne, and both boys posed a threat. And I didn’t buy the argument about the princes’ mother and sister either. Fear for your own survival and protecting other family members are reasons enough to do whatever you’re told - whether by Richard or Henry.

But apparently historians have tried to make cases against other suspects, such as Buckingham. An article from the Independent mentions others. (I don’t don’t know if it’s a credible source). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-10466190.html

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I don’t mean to play the devil’s advocate because I know you’ve tried Grant twice. But I’ll just mention that I decided to give it another try too, given how many folks here seem to enjoy his character. I just finished the last novel, The Singing Sands, and really enjoyed it. This time it was easy to empathize with Grant - he had humour, depth and character, and plenty of little grey cells. And I thought Tey’s writing was very good; lots of atmosphere and great observations about human nature.



Agreed - I was very taken aback when Tey had Carradine just casually throw away four deaths like that. It’s hard to imagine what she was thinking when she wrote that. Maybe coming through the WWII had blunted her feelings?

I realize it’s dangerous to rely on Wikipedia, but it sounds like she first fabricated, and then borrowed what served her case. According to Wikipedia, the Rose of Raby Grant was quoting from doesn’t even exist, nor the history book he read.

“Both Tanner's history and the novel are non-existent. It has been suggested that the title of the latter is derived from Guy Paget's 1937 biography of the same name.”

When I looked, I only found one other book entitled Rose of Raby, but it was published in 2011.

I found it Victoria," The Rose of Raby " it's a song, and a very nice one at that. Here's the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPPMCINjVBg

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I do agree with you - Richard usurped the throne, and both boys posed a threat. And I didn’t buy the argument about the princes’ mother and sister either. Fear for your own survival and protecting other family members are reasons enough to do whatever you’re told - whether by Richard or Henry.

But apparently historians have tried to make cases against other suspects, such as Buckingham. An article from the Independent mentions others. (I don’t don’t know if it’s a credible source). https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-10466190.html

Don't know anything about Buckingham, but as far as Richard and Henry go, the motive for Henry to kill the boys would have been exactly the same as Richard's motive. And Richard got there first. He had already betrayed his nephews by taking the crown and locking them up, beginning the process that culminated in their deaths. (Which makes him morally culpable at the very least.)

Tey's defense of Richard seems to be based largely on (1) Richard's looks, (2) disdain for More because his account was secondhand, (3) the subsequent behavior of the princes' mother, and (4) an expectation of tonypandy tainting whatever is inconvenient to the case she's making. Is that enough? Not to my mind.

I'm reminded of the Casey Anthony case. She had a motive, she failed to report her child missing, she made up an elaborate lie about a kidnapping, she'd had a dead body in her car--and yet, somehow, her defense team explained away each piece of evidence as though it were disconnected from the whole pattern. Is that what the revisionists do with Richard? Seems like pieces of the evidence can be explained away with alternate interpretations, but it strains credulity that all of them need to be. If a couple of pieces in a jigsaw puzzle are missing, generally the picture is still obvious.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by issybird

[...] 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.

I'd forgotten that Grant had been dismissive of criminals too. Such an opinion doesn't actually say all that much for inspectors who often have such trouble catching these silly criminals.

Originally Posted by Victoria

[...] 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. [...]

On the plus side, Richard was never convicted of murdering those children. Sliced and diced on the battle field after being betrayed (as all the kings of these times were, sometimes multiple times by the same people), but convicted of murder, no.

For me, it doesn't really matter how they died, I want to know how and why it was kept a secret. Even Titulus Regius, which Henry VII tried so hard to destroy, eventually came to light, and even if the document itself hadn't, the attempt to make it a secret was no secret. These kids had a mother and siblings that should have wanted to talk about them later - one of them even became queen! So how was it possible hide the deaths of these children so effectively that we don't even know when they died?

Originally Posted by Victoria

I don’t mean to play the devil’s advocate because I know you’ve tried Grant twice. But I’ll just mention that I decided to give it another try too, given how many folks here seem to enjoy his character. I just finished the last novel, The Singing Sands, and really enjoyed it. This time it was easy to empathize with Grant - he had humour, depth and character, and plenty of little grey cells. And I thought Tey’s writing was very good; lots of atmosphere and great observations about human nature. [...]

Thanks for the suggestion. Maybe after some time has passed I will give it a try. (Better not to read it now while I'm disposed to think poorly of it.)

[Wearever]

That's the problem, it was kept secret. We don't know how or when they died. We don't know if they died in the tower. We only know they disappeared. We can make our best guess and follow a trail. It looks like Richard lll or even Henry Vll. We don't know for certain. Someone knew and they didn't talk or were killed themselves. I think follow the trail of who was killed instead of the Princes. There were many on both sides. Buckingham and Hastings were both killed by Richard for treason. They supported his claim to the throne but they also hated the Woodvilles.

Richards Brother the King Edward the lV obviously had no problem with the Woodville uncles surrounding his son Edward V. Richard was happy in York by accounts. On his death bed he reconsidered and appointed Richard Protector not the Woodvilles. A conciliatory act perhaps. But as soon as Richard comes within striking distance of the Woodvilles he acts against them.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Weir's counterargument:

Thanks for this Catlady - interesting to read her comments. It's obviously one of those rather vague things that could be interpreted either way, depending on where the author's preferences lay!

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Victoria

I realize it’s dangerous to rely on Wikipedia, but it sounds like she first fabricated, and then borrowed what served her case. According to Wikipedia, the Rose of Raby Grant was quoting from doesn’t even exist, nor the history book he read.

“Both Tanner's history and the novel are non-existent. It has been suggested that the title of the latter is derived from Guy Paget's 1937 biography of the same name.”

When I looked, I only found one other book entitled Rose of Raby, but it was published in 2011.

Yes, I investigated those books at the time I was reading, given that the book gives no indication of containing excerpts from another author's work. They were by Tey herself, I am quite sure, and appear nowhere except within Tey's book.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Wearever

[...] Richards Brother the King Edward the lV obviously had no problem with the Woodville uncles surrounding his son Edward V. Richard was happy in York by accounts. On his death bed he reconsidered and appointed Richard Protector not the Woodvilles. A conciliatory act perhaps. But as soon as Richard comes within striking distance of the Woodvilles he acts against them.

I'm just reaching the relevant part of Philippa Gregory's imaginings in The White Queen. I already know (from Wikipedia) she's going to frame Beaufort, so I find it interesting to see that she is setting us up to not trust Richard - just named Protector by her dying husband, Edward IV. Elizabeth Woodville distrusts Richard so much that she sends to her brother Anthony to raise an army to defend her son Edward V and bring him to London to be crowned ASAP, while Hastings - ever loyal to Edward IV and his wishes - sends to Richard warning him.

So what we end up with is two armies that, ostensibly, want the same thing: to see Edward V protected and crowned. But neither trusts the other to see it done without disenfranchising their side's interests. (Meanwhile this poor 12yo kid is stuck in the middle; in theory he is an all-powerful king, but in practice he's just a pawn to other interests.) I'm expecting that Margaret Beaufort is going to sneak up in the middle of this confusion and take advantage - but haven't read that far yet.

Details aside, the idea that we may have this sort of confusion seems a realistic interpretation, to me. I can almost imagine now, without Gregory's help, how the two boys are going to get lost in the jostling for position, and that this confusion may explain how their disappearance becomes a mystery.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm just reaching the relevant part of Philippa Gregory's imaginings in The White Queen. I already know (from Wikipedia) she's going to frame Beaufort, so I find it interesting to see that she is setting us up to not trust Richard - just named Protector by her dying husband, Edward IV. Elizabeth Woodville distrusts Richard so much that she sends to her brother Anthony to raise an army to defend her son Edward V and bring him to London to be crowned ASAP, while Hastings - ever loyal to Edward IV and his wishes - sends to Richard warning him.

So what we end up with is two armies that, ostensibly, want the same thing: to see Edward V protected and crowned. But neither trusts the other to see it done without disenfranchising their side's interests. (Meanwhile this poor 12yo kid is stuck in the middle; in theory he is an all-powerful king, but in practice he's just a pawn to other interests.) I'm expecting that Margaret Beaufort is going to sneak up in the middle of this confusion and take advantage - but haven't read that far yet.

Details aside, the idea that we may have this sort of confusion seems a realistic interpretation, to me. I can almost imagine now, without Gregory's help, how the two boys are going to get lost in the jostling for position, and that this confusion may explain how their disappearance becomes a mystery.

Yes this is how I see it as well. I'm going to read Philippa Gregory's "White Queen" too, there is so much going on that side of the family as well. I just don't know much about the war of the Roses to make a informed opinion. I agree Margaret Beaufort was a key player as an instigator at the very least.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Yes this is how I see it as well. I'm going to read Philippa Gregory's "White Queen" too, there is so much going on that side of the family as well. I just don't know much about the war of the Roses to make a informed opinion. I agree Margaret Beaufort was a key player as an instigator at the very least.

Regarding your last sentence, I don't think anyone considered her much of a threat at the time. She was basically the loser, living off what generosity Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville decided to offer ... which happened to include being invited back to court and even becoming a godmother to one of the daughters. (Royalty are an odd bunch!) Gregory imagines this is at the behest of Edward IV, part of trying to tie Thomas Stanley's loyalty to the crown - Stanley being Margaret's fourth husband.

Whatever else Margaret Beaufort was, she was obviously tough and resilient. She saw through four marriages and I lose count how many kings. Not sure whether she was likeable, but she certainly seems to have been formidable.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

For me, it doesn't really matter how they died, I want to know how and why it was kept a secret. Even Titulus Regius, which Henry VII tried so hard to destroy, eventually came to light, and even if the document itself hadn't, the attempt to make it a secret was no secret. These kids had a mother and siblings that should have wanted to talk about them later - one of them even became queen! So how was it possible hide the deaths of these children so effectively that we don't even know when they died?

Originally Posted by Wearever

That's the problem, it was kept secret. We don't know how or when they died. We don't know if they died in the tower. We only know they disappeared. We can make our best guess and follow a trail. It looks like Richard lll or even Henry Vll. We don't know for certain. Someone knew and they didn't talk or were killed themselves. I think follow the trail of who was killed instead of the Princes. There were many on both sides. Buckingham and Hastings were both killed by Richard for treason. They supported his claim to the throne but they also hated the Woodvilles.

Despite Tey/Grant's belief in motherly love, and despite conflicting ideas about what actually happened to the princes, it seems pretty clear that they were pawns whose lives had little meaning to anyone except insofar as the power they represented. Their family seemed to act out of coldblooded practicality and expediency, with the singular goal of gaining power. And it seems that the family was hardly unique in those times.

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Yes, I investigated those books at the time I was reading, given that the book gives no indication of containing excerpts from another author's work. They were by Tey herself, I am quite sure, and appear nowhere except within Tey's book.

Glad this came up; I too looked for these books. I find it a terrible betrayal of the reader to mix real sources with fake ones; even though Tey was writing fiction, she pretended that her characters were looking at actual, legitimate source material. Reinterpretation of the material to support her bias is one thing; total invention is quite another.

[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

“For many years we thought that there were today no living female line descendants of the princes’ family, but just 18 months ago I succeeded in locating the 16 times great-granddaughter of their maternal grandmother, Jacquette of Luxembourg – and that has allowed us to obtain a modern sample of the mitochondrial DNA that the princes would have almost certainly also had,” said Glen Moran, the academic who carried out the crucial genealogical research.

That 16 times great-granddaughter of the Princes in the Tower’s maternal grandmother is the British opera singer Elizabeth Roberts, who was the soprano soloist during the lighting of the Olympic cauldron at the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics.

She told The Independent: “My family’s connection to this fascinating story from medieval English history has come as a complete surprise.”

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Yes, I investigated those books at the time I was reading, given that the book gives no indication of containing excerpts from another author's work. They were by Tey herself, I am quite sure, and appear nowhere except within Tey's book.

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.