Medium Cool is a weekly series related to popular culture, mostly film, TV, and books, with some music and games thrown in. We hope it’s a welcome break from the anger, hate, and idiocy we see almost daily from the other side in the political sphere.
Arguments welcomed, opinions respected, fools un-suffered. We’re here every Sunday at 7 pm.
Tonight is the final chapter of the series on Josephine Tey, brought to us by Subaru Dianne. These have been great, and I predict that BJ peeps will have a lot to say about The Daughter of Time, since it appears to be a favorite of so many people here. I clearly have some reading to do! Thank you, SD, for these wonderful series.
The Daughter of Time!
by Subaru Dianne
This week we conclude our discussion of the eight Josephine Tey mysteries with a focus on The Daughter of Time, Tey’s most famous and lauded* work by far.
On one level, it is simply a mid-20th-century attempt to unravel one of history’s most compelling true crimes — the fate of the two young “Princes in the Tower” — and to exonerate their accused murderer, their uncle, King Richard III. (This book is responsible for turning many people, myself included, into ardent and partisan Ricardians!)
But on another level, whether you (along with Tey’s Inspector Grant) absolve Richard or prefer to remember him as one of History’s Greatest Monsters, you will be struck, I think, by the contemporary pertinence of the questions raised: How, and why, and by whom do “Big Lies” get started? Why do so many people persist in believing them long after they’ve been discredited, even hundreds of years later?
These are topics the BJ Jackaltariat talks about constantly! I look forward to tonight’s discussion and your always-insightful comments.
*In 1990, the British Crime Writers’ Association voted The Daughter of Time number one in its list of “The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time.” Not too dusty!
Gretchen
I love this book! I chose it for my book club. Some of the members objected that it wasn’t a “real” mystery book so for the next one we read Rex Stout’s Fer de Lance and Dorothy Sayers’ Gaudy Night.
It’s a great example of “history is written by the winners” when they start investigating who wrote about Richard and how it slants things.
SiubhanDuinne
Sorry to start the thread on a sour(ish) note, but I have done something dire to my right shoulder, took more pain pills than I probably should have, and now can hardly keep my eyes open. I’ll try to follow all the comments and contribute as best I can, but if I suddenly disappear or get all incoherent, I hope you’ll understand.
Mr. Bemused Senior
First, Subaru Dianne and WaterGirl, thanks for organizing this. [SD, I hope you feel better soon!]
Bemused Senior was a voracious reader. For years I mostly read technical documents and other work-related material. She drew me into mysteries, including of course Tey. I am eternally grateful to her for helping me rediscover the joy of reading for pleasure.
DoT to me is an English history lesson as well as giving insight into the difference between history written by the victors and actual facts.
SiubhanDuinne
@Gretchen:
Ha! There are plenty of people who don’t consider Gaudy Night a legit mystery, because there’s no murder!
Torrey
Delighted that this post is open. The Daughter of Time is one of my favorite reads, and I regularly reread it, just for the pleasure of appreciating Tey’s artistry in presenting the story. Derek Jacobi is the narrator of the Audible audiobook, and he is spectacular.One of the important things I learned from the book when I first read it as a young teenager was from Grant’s insistence on establishing the facts by eliminating anything that could be spin. Serves me well in keeping track of American politics.
LiminalOwl
Oh no! Best wishes for shoulder healing.
I’ve adored this book for years, and appreciate this chance to be reminded of why. At first I was thinking: well, because it was the book that got me into English history… but no, it’s exactly what you note in your intro: the meta-questions about the nature of history itself, and how history is used for political and social ends, the facts (sometimes, too often) be damned. Thank you!
SiubhanDuinne
@Mr. Bemused Senior:
That is very well put. I don’t remember now, but I think it might well have been my introduction to the entire genre of “historical fiction.” Or it might have been Anya Seton’s Katharine, another lifelong favourite book.
Torrey
@SiubhanDuinne:
I’m so sorry to hear about your shoulder. Best wishes for rapid healing.
BellaPea
I absolutely need to read DoT as I love anything related to English history! Thank you so much for introducing me to this book, and I apologize that I don’t have anything to contribute as I have not read it. I will soon! I also have loved Anya Seton’s Katherine since I was 16 years old (I’m 67 now) so glad to hear I have a fellow fan. Hope you guys have a great discussion this evening!
SiubhanDuinne
There are such wonderful secondary characters in this book, too. The Midget and The Amazon, Matron, and the surgeon are, as usual with Tey, beautifully drawn — but most especially, Brent Carradine III, the “Woolly Lamb.” I just adore him!
SiubhanDuinne
Thanks to everyone for the good shoulder wishes. I wasn’t looking for sympathy, just wanted to explain any weirdnesses* in my comments.
*Any more than usual :-)
OlFroth
I read it in college, on the recomendation of my History professor. What a great book!
Dorothy A. Winsor
When SD announced the title, I thought I’d never read it, but by the end of the second page, I thought, wait, is this the book where a detective solves a crime from the hospital? And I realized I’d read it maybe 30 years ago. I respect the way Tey frustrates the expectations for a detective novel. In the opening pages, Grant thinks that the books his friends are bringing him are just like all the other books those authors have written. So Tey is playing with us a little.
I’d forgotten it was Richard III he “investigates,” but this was so much fun. SD, you’re right about the issues it raises about history. Great choice.
kalakal
It’s a very long time since I read the book but I remember being impressed by how Tey didn’t condescend to our ancestors. There’s a very strong ‘popular’ tendency to do the “look how stupid people where x years ago, they believed xxxx” Our ancestors where are smart/stupid as we are and good luck to anyone who thinks they’re smarter than Isaac Newton. Tey shows the actors in her mystery as rational, intelligent individuals motivated by realistic concerns. She follows “the money”. This is more common now in historical fiction, it was really, really rare 75 years ago.
I’m something of a Ricardian so I’m biased but I think Tey did a marvellous job of analysing the sources to make both a powerful case for her solution and to write an excellent novel at the same time.
SD sorry to hear about your shoulder, hope it clears up soon
SiubhanDuinne
@Torrey:
Derek Jacobi is one of my very favourite actors, and I’ll bet he reads DoT wonderfully well. Thanks for the reference. I have two audiobook versions, one read by Edward Petherbridge and the other by Karen Somebody (Karen Catt or Carr or Cahn or something). I love Petherbridge as an actor, but I’m sorry to say he does nothing for me as a reader. Karen is … fine. But I need to get hold of the Jacobi version.
LiminalOwl
@SiubhanDuinne: Another vote for Katherine too!
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Oh, no!
Almost Retired
I loved this book, which I read in a single setting yesterday. I’m not much of a fan of mysteries and would never have picked this up without SiubhanDuinne’s recommendation. But what a classic. So, thanks!
The ‘history is bunk’ and the ‘let’s analyze this logically’ themes appealed to my lawyer brain.
Grant’s methodical examination of the evidence was riveting. And since he’s examining 500 year old events, the plot is not undercut by what we know about modern forensics (which was my problem with “Rebecca”…..a simple DNA test would have made the whole issue moot).
Last year I read Philippa Gregory’s “The White Queen,” so I was familiar with the characters – it was told from the point of view of Richard III’s sister in law, Elizabeth Woodville. So it was easier for me to keep track of the names.
But there are so many Edwards, Richards and Elizabeths. If only 15th Century monks had produced one of those “Name Your Baby” books and distributed it amongst the Plantagenets. The historical record would have been easier to follow with a Madison or Ethan thrown into the mix.
kalakal
@SiubhanDuinne: I’d be interested to know what you think of C. J. Sansom’s Mathew Shardlake books, set just a bit after DoT in Henry VIII’s reign. I’m a big fan
SiubhanDuinne
@WaterGirl:
It is not a big deal, but thank you. I wrenched it in my sleep last night and it’s been bothering me all day. I wouldn’t even have mentioned it, but I took three of the really kapow!! extra-special-super-duper enhanced Tylenols they gave me a few years ago when I broke my arm. Had forgotten how potent they are.
Tehanu
First, hope your shoulder is better.
I too became a Ricardian because of The Daughter of Time, and I’m grateful to Tey for bringing the story to us. I read my copy so many times it fell apart. I now have a copy I bought from The Folio Society — boxed, intro by Alison Weir, color illustrations — and I just realized, I haven’t re-read it in ages. So this is a very welcome reminder. I used to be active in the Richard III Society, and one of my favorite memories is a visit to Middleham Castle in Wensleydale — a romantic ruin indeed, especially viewed coming up the dale from the west, so you see its commanding position against the green hillsides. And the whole story of Richard III is, as others here have already observed, a great lesson in the power of spin and innuendo, and how difficult it is to dig out the truth of events.
Actually, my favorite book about Richard III is a fantasy set in a Europe very different from the historical one, John M. Ford’s The Dragon Waiting, about which I will only say that in it, the Princes had to be killed for good reasons. It’s the kind of book where you have to suspend disbelief from the neck until it’s dead, but if you can, it’s worth it. I also loved Katherine, though (again) I haven’t read it in a long time.
bookworm1398
I read this a while back and I remember liking it, though not the details. It left me unsure about who had killed the boys, but he still stole the throne by my reckoning. The whole thing is a reminder that both sides in a conflict can be wrong/ bad guys. And I will never really get the whole non acceptance of bastards thing.
Omnes Omnibus
Feel better soon.
In anticipation of this thread, I bookmarked a video on Richard III. It is pretty even handed and hopefully entertaining. People less than familiar with the Wars of Roses may find it helpful
SiubhanDuinne
@kalakal:
That’s recommendation enough for me! I admit to never having read them, though I’ve come close a few times! But that was back when I was still working and was a bit afraid to go haring off on a whole new series. But I’m retired now, so……
sab
When I was their age I saw the painting of those boys and it broke my heart. Years later I realized it was just propaganda. Those boys didn’t look like that and that is probably not how those boys died.
Josie
It is interesting to me how many stories about that time in British history make people out to be villains or heroes/heroines – Richard, Elizabeth Woodville, Richard’s father (I forget his name), Edward, etc.
I suspect that, more than anything, they were strong minded people, trying to survive and take care of their families in a brutal time period. I like the idea of solving the mystery of their actions by looking at many different accounts and using logic rather than emotion.
Torrey
@SiubhanDuinne:
Get it. You won’t regret it.
Omnes Omnibus
That’s easy. Richard.
caphilldcne
Thank you for this thread. I appreciate you letting me know about this book which I am certain my mother will enjoy. She’s turning 81 soon. Alas has a lot of pain including recently wrenching her shoulder do we feel your pain, SD. Also she loves these types of mysteries and also any art mysteries. If anyone has suggestions do let me know.
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: oops! I might have started with just one, but you’re a all-in kind of girl, and I can respect that. :-)
AnneWith
Add me to the list of those who became a Ricardian due to DoT. I also greatly enjoy Elizabeth Peters The Murders of Richard III, which features a house party of Ricardians, & much discussion of DoT (the main character finds Tey’s portrayal of RIII to be a bit soppy).
caphilldcne
I’m not sure if my previous comment attempt showed up. So just a quick thanks. This is a perfect book for 81 yo Mom. She also just wrenched her shoulder so we are sending SD good thoughts and hope everyone gets pain free soon.
Josie
@Omnes Omnibus: Lol. Thanks. I should have known.
Torrey
@Josie:
It was Richard. Because of course it was. Almost Retired’s point about a surfeit of Richards, Edwards, and Elizabeths was exceedingly well taken. (Actually, that leaves me wondering why Richard senior and Cecily his wife didn’t get around to naming a kid after him until four or five sons down.)
Fun fact: Richard’s father, Richard Duke of York, was arguably the inspiration for Ned Stark in Game of Thrones.
ETA: Omnes got there first.
Heidi Mom
I read DoT many years ago and just finished a re-read this afternoon. Yes, it–and further reading–turned me, too, into a Ricardian. Tey does a fine job of explaining just how good a king Richard was, and how unworthy his successor was.
Tony Jay
@Tehanu:
Awesome book. Fantastic characters you really care about, big stakes, a dash of murder mystery tossed in there to bring them together. Loved it. Ford was channelling Dorothy Dunnett with a helping of really clever alt-hist when he wrote that.
zhena gogolia
I haven’t read it (I was thinking maybe I had, but I guess he’s kind of convalescing in The Singing Sands too, and that’s the one I read). But reading this discussion, I see that Colin Dexter ripped off the plot for The Wench Is Dead. Morse is in the hospital and uses his time to try to solve a historical murder. (Although there’s no real history involved.)
LiminalOwl
@Tehanu: Yes on The Dragon Waiting too, though I read it only once. And recommendations for, well, anything else available by Mike Ford. (Siubhan Duinne, for a very short bit of entertainment, I commend to your attention the story “Scrabble with God.’”)
Tehanu, I recognize the origin of your name. Were you by chance on rasff long ago? Been meaning to ask, hope you don’t mind.
SiubhanDuinne
@Josie:
Well, if you’re talking about Richard, his father’s name was Richard. If, on the other hand, you’re talking about Richard, I’d have to consult a genealogical table.
:-)
Omnes Omnibus
@AnneWith: Interesting. No Tudor apologists here yet. We could use Mnen here, she was convinced by Alison Weir’s book that RIII was guilty. I blame Buckingham. With some Tudor in second place.
Kate
Folks here may be interested in watching “The Lost King,” now available on Acorn TV, starring Sally Hawkins.
From their website:
“The true story of amateur historian Philippa Langley who took on Britain’s most eminent historians and forced them to rethink the legacy of Richard lll.”
kalakal
@SiubhanDuinne: I think you’ll like them😄 You do need to read them in series order
Feathers
I’m going to have to admit that I am going against the consensus here. I read the book and enjoyed it in my 20s, but it did not turn me into a Ricardian. Reading it a month or so, I found it a fascinating example of how bad information can be dressed up and presented as brave truth telling. It really is amazing how compelling Tey’s storytelling skills are. If I had to teach college students about himpathy, this book would would probably be my text.
Tey goes so far in “eliminating spin,” that she is deliberately refusing to look at almost all the available facts. Handwaving away “Tudor propaganda” means that we cannot use any sources written after Richard’s death. Complaining that the Wars of the Roses are too complicated to follow means that the actual motivations of the people involved are lost. Reading it I felt like it was someone with some weird theory about the 2016 election, which depends on completely ignoring the events of Clinton presidency because Hillary wasn’t an elected official then, and besides, it was the previous century. The truth is that the boys were never seen alive after August 1483. They were under Richard’s closely held control. It’s very clear that within a few weeks, most of the people involved thought the boys were dead, and acted accordingly.
I went on a bit of a research rabbit hole after reading DoT. I’d really recommend Alison Weir’s The Princes in the Tower, which goes through all the extant material available, and comes to the conclusion that Richard did indeed murder the princes, with a pretty close and detailed timeline. I also watched The Lost King, about the Ricardian woman who pushed for the dig that finally found Richard’s body. I really did enjoy it. The film finds a balance between her fervent belief in Richard’s innocence and the fact that he undoubtedly is not.
Sorry if I went on too long. This one got me.
Omnes Omnibus
@Torrey: Edward IV the king who never lost a battle and then made an ill-advised marriage had strong echoes in Robb Stark.
Nelle
I’m startled by the change in Tey’s writing between The Man in the Queue and Daughter of Time. At least, my impression is that the writing is both sharper and also more economical in getting directly to her point. Vivid. I found myself enjoying my reread (after maybe five decades) o Daughter of Time much more that that of the first one.
Anyone hear watch The Lost King recently? It’s on Acorn right now…I might watch it again, after first seeing it in the theatre. Edit – I see that this has come up already.
LiminalOwl
@bookworm1398: OK, I’ll bite: why do you reckon it a stolen throne? If Edward’s children were illegitimate, Richard was the rightful heir.
Tony Jay
@Omnes Omnibus:
The Tudors didn’t rule for long, but they had BIG reigns in the historically-important sense, and they were lucky that they had the most famous playwright in the history of the English language in their corner.
Richard had a horse he really liked and was dead. Not much of a fair contest.
LiminalOwl
@Nelle: The Thin Black Duke and I saw The Lost King in the theatre too. Haven’t re-watched.
Omnes Omnibus
@Feathers: There are holes in Weir’s arguments too. Henry VII, for example, never accused Richard of killing his nephews. Why wouldn’t he have done? It’s a curious case if the dog in the night piece of evidence, but significant.
Torrey
@AnneWith:
Another book along the same lines as the Daughter of Time is Donald MacLachlan’s The Adventure of the Bloody Tower in which Dr. Watson (yes, that Dr Watson) is asked to investigate the historical mystery. From the cover: “‘For the very first time since I had met him, Mr. Sherlock Holmes let me down.’ As a result, Dr. John H. Watson finds himself forced to accept, in 1883, a trucky challenge to investigate the facts and fictions surrounding King Richard III. Richard III: Monster? Murderer of his brother’s young boys? Usurper? Or a legitimate but reluctant heir to the crown, and a good king who produced laws that are still in effect in Great Britain. The game is afoot for the good doctor, from serene Magdalen College, Oxford, to the Bloody Tower at the notorious Tower of London.”
Received it as a gift, haven’t yet had a chance to read it, but it looks like it might be of interest. At this point, I find it impossible to imagine Dr, Watson as anyone other than Martin Freeman.
Traveller
For a different view from Tey’s, brought wonderfully to life by Ian McKennan as an adaption of Shakespeare’s Richard III, see link below…it is visually and intellectually exciting.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114279/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_6_nm_2_q_Richard%2520III
For a more classical presentation, see Laurence Olivier’s Richard III…while both take the More/Shakespeare view…they are both great movies to watch.
Best Wishes, Traveller
sab
@SiubhanDuinne: We are grown jackals, not jackal pups/cubs. We’ll fend for ourselves and tomorrow you can inspect the rubble.
Almost Retired
Also, Alan Grant has a broken leg. And he gets to stay in the hospital until it heals? Different times….
Steeplejack
(Note: Haven’t read the comments yet.)
I did my (enjoyable) homework for this week and finished the book in good time. I made a few notes and had time to mull them over. One thing that struck me the most was the recurring theme of “Tonypandy.”
Grant, with the aid of Carradine’s research in various archives, goes on to investigate the case by separating fact from narrative. As Carradine puts it:
So Grant and Carradine go through the whole “case,” separating what people actually did from what they said, or what was said about them. And Tey makes a compelling case for Richard’s innocence.
After I finished the novel I went looking for discussion and debate about it and the historical controversy in general. I was surprised that I didn’t find very much, and I was shocked to see that a lot of what I did find relied on sources, many of them secondhand, that Tey had already debunked—or prebunked, in Balloon Juice parlance. I’d love to see some sources, if anyone can recommend some.
Steeplejack
@SiubhanDuinne:
The stage actress Marta Hallard is also an interesting character, although seen only somewhat obliquely. As a playwright Tey must have had extensive knowledge of the type. Of the ingenue Atlanta Shergold, too—the never seen fiancée of Brent Carradine, the woolly lamb.
Almost Retired
@Steeplejack: That was my biggest takeaway from the novel. She may not have been right about Richard III, but history is not written by historians.
Steeplejack
@Steeplejack:
To clarify a bit, when I went looking for discussion and debate, I was wondering how much (if at all) Tey padded her narrative with fictional details or if she confined herself strictly to the actual historical record.
CaseyL
I loved this book on many levels, but haven’t re-read it in years. Due for another read, now that I’m older and soooo much more cynical.
To me, the question that Grant posed that rang loudest was, Cui bono? Richard, being childless and therefore heir-less, had much less reason to kill the Princes than the Tudors, who had much less of a claim to the throne.
I should note, however, that Mike Ford, in an afterword to his sci-fi/fantasy/alt.history masterpiece The Dragon Waiting, made an interesting comment about this: something along the lines that we (modern readers) have all absorbed Machiavelli, and would probably better understand a political imperative to kill rival claimants to the throne in the name of national stability.
The Wars of the Roses devastated England for two generations; any ruler who cared about not having that happen again might be a bit more ruthless than they would have been otherwise.
Almost Retired
@Steeplejack: It seems a bit of both. She describes the short reign of Richard III in sort of idyllic terms, but there were military uprisings that don’t get mentioned.
Tehanu
@LiminalOwl: Not sure what “rasff” is/was, but I don’t think so. I’ve been using this as my internet moniker for about, um, 12 or 13 years, I think. I am a LeGuin fan, as you can tell!
Steeplejack
Tey’s style is remarkably fluid—things keep moving along even with the detailed scholarly research—and there are some nice background patches as well.
Timill
@Steeplejack: I can do you a generally unquoted source for Richard: along with Henry VII and Henry VIII, he’s one of the three Benefactors of King’s College Cambridge, which was founded by Henry VI. And as you will already have noted, he’s the only Yorkist there.
In general, my take is that Richard was competent: if live Princes are a threat to him, so are undead ones. If he killed the Princes, he needed to announce their deaths to complete the elimination.
And one thing that puzzles me: why were both the Pretenders claiming to be Richard DoY not Edward V? Was EdV known to have died at some point now lost?
Steeplejack
If anyone is motivated to read The Daughter of Time, Project Gutenberg Canada has an HTML version here.
If you have a Kindle (or the Kindle app), the best version I found on Amazon is this one (for 99 cents).
Steeplejack
Now to make myself a stiff drink and read the comments!
SiubhanDuinne
@Steeplejack:
Marta Hallard is a recurring secondary character in the Grant books — you’ll find her also in A Shilling for Candles and To Love and Be Wise. According to Jennifer Morag Henderson’s biography of Tey, Marta was modelled on a close friend and member of Tey’s circle, an actress named Marda [sic] Vanne.
Miss Bianca
@Tehanu: I haven’t read The Daughter of Time in 40 years, at least, but it made a powerful impression on me. Have been re-reading all of Tey as a result of SD’s postings here, and they have been gratifying to varying degrees so far, but this is the one I have been looking forward to the most.
I actually just read The Dragon is Waiting not too long ago. Interesting book, but a bit too…elliptical, perhaps, for me. I have the feeling I would need to re-read it at least once or twice more before I really understood what was going on, and these days that’s just too much work for me.//
(I felt the same way about How Much for Just the Planet?, his Star Trek novel. Clever, but so convoluted! – I finally gave up trying to make any sense out of the action. Would have worked better as a screenplay, imho.)
Steeplejack
@Omnes Omnibus:
Thanks for that. Will check it out later.
LiminalOwl
@Tehanu: Sorry, that must have been a different Tehanu. More than 20 years ago!
I’m somewhat of a LeGuin fan too, of course. And occasionally I can revommend Earthsea to clients.
Feathers
@LiminalOwl: There was never any proof offered of the assertion that Edward IV had a pre contracted marriage with Judith Butler. For Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville to actually be declared invalid, there would have had to have been a ruling from the ecclesiastical court. Richard never requested one, presumably because there was no actual evidence. Hence, the marriage was never actually ruled invalid. Richard had parliament make lots of rulings on matters which they did not have the authority to do so. It doesn’t seem to have been actually believed, but everyone knew Edward was an incorrigible womanizer, and Butler wasn’t really any more unsuitable than Woodville had been, so nobody could definitely say it hadn’t happened.
@Omnes Omnibus: I think Weir’s contention that Henry didn’t want any attention brought back to his claiming of the throne is pretty valid. Also, he didn’t have the bodies, although he was looking for them. Without the bodies, he’d just be raising more questions, rather than providing answers. That the boys were never seen after the very early days of Richard’s reign is far stronger evidence to me.
I also checked out Thomas Penn’s Winter King: Thé Birth of Tudor England. I’ve only skimmed it, but it looks good. I thing I want to watch The White Queen and The White Princess first, as I would probably be annoyed by the inaccuracies if I had just read a good history.
Nelle
@Steeplejack: Thanks for highlighting this, especially in light of talking about the Big Lie today and January 6.
I read it on Kindle, which I don’t usually use. So I lost track of the bits that I wanted to bring up here. You got one of the important bits.
Josie
@SiubhanDuinne:
As you can tell from my comment, I am not much of a fan of British history. I also have not read many mystery books since I was much younger. I must thank you, however, for inspiring me to read Josephine Tey by doing this series. I love her style. Her language is so precise and the characters so beautifully drawn and recognizable. I’m planning to go back and reread all of her books just to bask in her word choices.
SiubhanDuinne
@Omnes Omnibus:
I saw that in the movie theatre when it was first released. A brilliant and utterly chilling, terrifying interpretation of the Shakespeare play. I got goosebumps again just watching that trailer a minute ago.
I vividly remember seeing the Olivier film version in July 1959, halfway across the Atlantic Ocean on board the Canadian Pacific liner Empress of France. Have no idea how CP selected their nightly film offerings, or at this point what the other movies were, but that one looms large in memory.
Timill
@Feathers: I’m sure he could have got an answer from the ecclesiastical court…:
R3: “Now choose! Either die in the vacuum of space or… tell me my brother’s marriage was invalid.”
EC: “Your brother’s marriage was invalid.”
Steeplejack
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yes, this. Why didn’t Henry include the murders in his laundry list of “why Richard was a bad dude”?
Torrey
@CaseyL:
The princes were not seen after June 1483. Richard’s legitimate son Edward lived until April 1484. So at the time of the boys’ apparent disappearance, Richard had a living heir.
By the way, the Big Finish Dr. Who continuation has a Richard III episode in which the Fifth Doctor lands in England towards the end of Edward IV’s reign. It’s fun.
Omnes Omnibus
@SiubhanDuinne: No, I think your pain pills may be kicking in. My link is to a YouTube history “influencer” and her 41 minute summary of Richard’s life and background.
SiubhanDuinne
@Josie:
I am so glad to know that! And I think you’ll find, as others have mentioned, that her writing becomes both more lyrical and more economical as she gains confidence and experience.
She can also be hella funny — not LOL funny, but lots of wry little observations that are a delight to come across.
Torrey
@Timill:
There’s also a suggestion I’ve seen that the boys were kidnapped by someone else and Richard had no idea where they were. Henry, Duke of Buckingham, has been mentioned as a possible suspect. I’m not a historian and I don’t have references except an article in the Mills College Quarterly by Elizabeth Pope. 1974, I think. But if the boys were kidnapped by someone else, and neither Richard nor Henry Tudor had any idea where they were, if they were alive or dead, that would account for the behavior of both men. (Again, not a historian, just spitballing, based on the suggestion.)
SiubhanDuinne
@Omnes Omnibus:
Oh, sorry, probably so! Well, somebody here provided a link to the trailer of the Ian McKellen film of R3. That’s what I was remembering.
Yours looks interesting too. I’ll check it out tomorrow. Thank you.
EDIT: That was @Traveller (#50). Thank you for that link, and apologies for misdirecting my reply.
Crimson Pimpernel
My copy of DoT is falling to pieces, but I’d like to be more persuaded of her conclusions than I am. Some of Tey’s arguments seem inconsistent (if I recall correctly, Edward’s sons were ineligible to succeed because their parents’ marriage was illegitimate but elsewhere Richard could have made his out-of-wedlock son his heir). Medievalists I know also have been skeptical. Nonetheless a great read.
Timill
@Torrey: Nice idea!
Also on the “not Richard” side: Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick (Clarence’s surviving male heir), who could also have had a better claim than Richard to the throne. It was left to H7 to off him.
Steeplejack
@Torrey:
LOL. Late last night I happened to watch Dressed to Kill (1946), with Nigel Bruce as the estimable doctor and Basil Rathbone as Holmes. Completely different approach, but iconic in its way.
I loved Sherlock, but the definitive Holmes for me is Jeremy Brett in the 1980s Granada series, and he had two Watsons—David Burke and Edward Hardwicke. They segued so seamlessly that it’s hard to tell them apart.
Steeplejack
@Almost Retired:
And an injury to his spine. I think that’s what kept him in the hospital—and so immobile that he couldn’t look at anything but the ceiling for much of the book. Chapter 14:
Omnes Omnibus
@Timill: Clarence was attainted. Attainders cover children, so until and unless it was reversed young Warwick was ineligible.
Feathers
@Steeplejack: because he didn’t know who had killed them and when and how it had been done, until Tyrell confesses in 1502. At that point, he seems to have chosen to let the matter alone. Also, bringing up the dead princes would also draw attention to the fact that his wife was the rightful heir. And if not her, then Warwick and Lincoln were ahead of him in the succession. However, at that point England needed an adult King, so Parliament accepted his claim by right of conquest.
I seem to be the only one taking the historian’s side. Should I drop it?
It’s fascinating seeing people bringing up Jan 6. Because I’m seeing it, but but from the other side.
Steeplejack
@CaseyL:
But if Richard III was worried about “rival claimants” to the throne, there were more than just the two boys—something like five or seven other siblings or relatives who theoretically would have had to be gotten out of the way. But Richard allowed them to live and even prosper.
anitamargarita
@LiminalOwl: and another, I love that book
Steeplejack
@Timill:
Uh, who is the source you are referring to? Unclear to me.
CaseyL
@Torrey:
Huh. I either forgot that, or never knew it.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
I too owe to DoT my becoming a Ricardian, and my interest in English history in general. Before reading the book, my grasp of English history was shaky (Americans don’t get much British history in Junior and high school lol). I knew 1066, and Richard the Lion-Hearted, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth, and Victoria. I had never heard of the War of the Roses, or Edward IV, or Richard III. So I owe Josephine Tey a great debt, along with a lot of enjoyment of Brat Farrar, Miss Pym Disposes, To Love and Be Wise, etc.
Timill
@Omnes Omnibus: Yup. Which is to say: the same position as EdV and RDoY: excluded unless Parliament reverses itself. If R3 needed to kill the Princes, he also needed to kill Warwick. Which he didn’t. And therefore he didn’t…
Omnes Omnibus
One historian. There still is disagreement. IMO Weir relies a bit too much on Thomas More’s probity. More’s willingness to trust the previous generation’s writers who happened to write a version of events friendly to the Tudors is sensible from an ambitious man. That is not inconsistent with his later unwillingness to sign an oath that violated his conscience. They are different things.
Edited slightly.
Timill
@Steeplejack: You can probably find it on King’s website. But all Kingsmen used to eat dinner under their portraits (until some lowlife half-inched them).
Percysowner
Like many others, I love this book. Yes, it turned me into a full fledged Richardian. At the very least, it makes me keep in mind that history is, in fact, written by the victors and that The Big Lie is not a modern invention. It’s a book I return to now and again, which is more than I can say about most mysteries. The fact that it is so different from most mysteries makes it worth rereading for me.
Timill
@Omnes Omnibus: Richard III is as remote from More as Nixon’s execution of Archibald Cox is from us. (More so, given the shorter lifespan then)
Steeplejack
@Feathers:
But Tyrrel didn’t confess, at least according to Tey.
Steeplejack
@Timill:
You can’t name the source? I looked on the Google and the King’s College Wikipedia entry and didn’t find anything. Can you at least cite the relevant document(s)?
J R in WV
Many years ago, Wife and I took a tour of mostly ancient sites in Basque Spain and Sw France, one of which was Richard the First’s of France, same guy, castle in a beautiful countryside, where even a king couldn’t stay out over night. So there was a castle every day’s travel apart.
The castle was fascinating, somewhat empty but well lit.
We weren’t allowed in the basements, but there were cannonballs embedded in some exterior walls. Even the wealthy and powerful Iived hard Iives back then!
And life was cheap also!
columbusqueen
The novel I passionately recommend on Richard is Sharon Kay Penman’s The Sunne in Splendour. She shows a great level of perception about all the historical people she writes about, & I find her answers to the riddles of the time convincing.
Zelma
Historian here. In fact, an English historian who taught English history for decades and has read literally dozens of books about the era. I also read and loved Daughter of Time as a teenager. I assigned the novel quite often over the years, especially to my “Writing History” students. It is a wonderful example of reading source material critically. But…
I firmly believe that Richard did it. Richard’s actions after his brother’s death were absolutely ruthless. He set about to eliminate any possible political rivals, anyone who had influence over his nephews and anyone who supported them. He probably believed he was acting out of self-preservation. The memories of the bloodbath that had preceded Edward IV’s final victory were fresh.
The fact is that the boys were never seen after August, that the queen dowager fled with her daughters to the protection of the church, and that there seemed to be a contemporary belief that Richards had ordered them killed. Means, motive and opportunity. A very strong circumstantial case.
I think you will find that among professional historians of the era, the belief in Richard’s guilt is pretty unanimous.
Catnaz
@SiubhanDuinne: a ridiculous reason. Gaudy Night is a fine read, and about as “feminist” as you could get back then. Of course there was also the romance, but that also proceeded on Harriet’s terms.
Feathers
@Steeplejack: I think the reason why you don’t find much discussion online is because anyone tries to do so ends up in a morass with Ricardians simply refusing to accept evidence from the period that doesn’t suit their needs.
As I said in my first post, this whole thing has all the marks of ‘himpathy.’ A man, whose portrait shows us a man with a serene and interesting face, was a valiant soldier, a king who ruled wisely (though arguably because he needed to because everyone thought he had murdered his nephews to gain the throne), must therefore be wrongly accused. Innocent until proven guilty comes to mean that all the contemporary sources are lying propaganda and should be automatically ignored. When what texts we have are from a generation later, that means only eyewitness testimony is valid. People start inventing new ways he could be innocent. Kidnapping? The Tower of London was very secure and the only reason to kidnap the boys would have been to raise an army and seize the throne from Richard. Which didn’t happen.
Folks, people with great faces who do good works in the world are capable of murdering their family. I know it’s uncomfortable, but it’s really eye opening to see how many people really seem to need for that not to be true.
Tehanu
@Zelma: Maybe “pretty unanimous,” but not completely; what about Paul Murray Kendall?
Omnes Omnibus
Well, thanks for not condescending to anyone here.
Zelma
@Tehanu:
Kendall wrote a long time ago and there has been lots of new historiography on the era since then. I did say “pretty” unanimous.
Zelma
@Tehanu:
The latest worthwhile book is Thomas Penn, The Brothers York: A Royal Tragedy. It’s really well written and describes the fraught relationship between Edward, his brother Clarence and Richard. Damaged men, all.
Steeplejack
@Feathers:
You haven’t offered much, if any, evidence, just a referral to Alison Weir’s book and a somewhat convoluted theory that we’re all under the hypnotic sway of “himpathy” and Richard’s “great face.”
I’m not a Ricardian, by any means, but you’re offering very little on the other side. Mostly just accusing Tey of “handwaving away ‘Tudor propaganda’” and of “complaining that the Wars of the Roses are too complicated to follow.”
And did what, exactly? Do you have any sources for what people thought or what they did that would be connected to the boys’ deaths?
CaseyL
BTW, if anyone here is interested, there’s a sweet little British film that came out in 2022 called “The Lost King,” which is based on the true story about an amateur historian finding where Richard III’s body was.
The lead is played by Sally Hawkins, the same actress who starred in “The Shape of Water.” She sees visions of Richard asking her to find him (and Richard is played by Harry Lloyd, who also played Viserys Targaryen in “Game of Thrones”).
stinger
Having read and re-read DoT several times over the course of several decades, I find it to be a great read, an original style of mystery, and a fresh way (at the time it was written) to think about history. However, the whole story for me is weakened by Tey’s (or Grant’s) initial reliance on a painting of Richard not taken from life. (The image at the top of this post is held by Britain’s National Portrait Gallery and stated by them to be late 16th century, not early — meaning it was painted about 100 years after Richard’s death.) You might say it’s only a jumping-off point for Grant’s investigation, but he keeps coming back to it.
When Agatha Christie uses physiognomy to indicate someone’s guilt, she is rightly derided. I don’t see why this is any different.
Steeplejack
@CaseyL:
Streaming on Acorn and AMC+. Available to rent or buy elsewhere.
Feathers
@Steeplejack: Weir cites multiple journals and letters from ordinary people in London where they say that they thought the boys were dead. But by Tey’s standards, this is hearsay and gossip and not to be considered. Also, we have accounts from various courts of Europe that the Princes are dead and Richard responsible. But, again, hearsay.
It isn’t that there aren’t sources, it’s that there is a sizable group of people who have decided that these sources, which are as good as anything we have for the era, aren’t good enough when it comes to Richard being accepted as having murdered the princes in the tower.
Do you agree with Tey that More is not a reliable source?
Crimson Pimpernel
By the way, when I was a college student and spent the summer of 1973 in London, I stayed at Crosby Hall, once owned by Richard (and subsequently, ironically, by Thomas More). When I stayed there it offered inexpensive lodging for students. The 15th century part was the dining hall, fortunately not the student rooms. I believe Grant mentions the place to Brent in passing in DoT. Per Wikipedia, it is now privately owned.
Cathie from Canada
@Gretchen: just a side note on Rex Stout — in one of his books, Archie says Wolfe once spent a week investigating the death of the princes, and then removed Sir Thomas More from his shelves because he had libeled Richard III.
West of the Rockies
I hope a new post arrives.
eclare
@West of the Rockies:
Your wish has been granted.
joel hanes
Back when the blogosphere flourished, John M. Ford was a commenter/contributor to the Nielsen Hayden’s blog Making Light.
He wrote this poem about 9/11
http://www.110stories.us/
Paul in KY
@bookworm1398: William I, who was a bastard himself, left explicit instructions/commands that the throne of England could never be passed down to a person of bastard birth.
Paul in KY
@sab: The former Edward V had a terrible infected tooth at that time. Probably jaw swollen, etc. His brother had also been Duke of Norfolk, as well as Duke of York. That was one of the things done by his father that helped to get them in the tower.
Paul in KY
@Heidi Mom: IMO, Richard III was a good king for regular, non-gentry folk. Problem was, he also needed to be a good king for the people who had all the political power back then and he wasn’t.
Paul in KY
@Omnes Omnibus: Richard had them offed. I think his wife was a factor with her desire to see people who would/could be counter-claimants to the throne eliminated.
Paul in KY
@Omnes Omnibus: Henry VII never explicitly accused Richard of that, but in his general ‘Richard is a monstrous evil tyrant murderer scumbag, etc. etc.’ seems to be alluding to it (IMO).
Henry never liked mentioning the side of the family that was his only link to having the throne (his wife’s side).
Paul in KY
@CaseyL: He had a very alive child in 1483. His son Edward, Prince of Wales.
Paul in KY
@Feathers: Edward and Elizabeth never had a public ceremony for their wedding. That was a big ecclesiastical no-no. If a public ceremony had been had, that marriage may later on be found to be bigamous, but the children produced by the union are considered legitimate. No public ceremony and later marriage found to be bigamous, children are judged illegitimate.
That appears to be what Richard III was going on. It seems that within Edward’s close partying circle, it was no secret that ‘Hey baby, want to be Queen?’ was one of his go-to courting tactics for a highly born woman he wanted to bed and would not just jump into bed with him at the getgo (in his pre-Woodville youth).
Paul in KY
@Timill: And H7 did it much more elegantly than R3.
Of course, H7 had much, much better advisors/mentors than did R3 (IMO).
Paul in KY
@Omnes Omnibus: H7 did treat him as if he really was Earl of Warwick heir and a rival claimant to crown. The kid seems to have had mental competency problems maybe.
Paul in KY
@Steeplejack: ‘Claimants’ with a better claim than he and his son (if they aren’t illegitimate, etc. etc.)
Paul in KY
@Timill: He didn’t need to kill Edward, son of George Plantagenet, as the sainted Edward IV had attainted him and thus he was not eligible to inherit. Plus the boy appears to have been handicapped in some gross manner that would have stopped him from assuming the crown anyway.
Paul in KY
@Steeplejack: Henry VII was quite happy that the boys were dead, as he’d never have been King if they were still alive. Same goes for Duke of Buckingham being dead.
ETtheLibrarian
I loved this book and still have my copy. I should re-read it. I would say that it is the reason I have ever payed attention to this period of English history. When he was dug up years ago this book was mentioned as a bit of a catalyst for the pro Richard camp. I don’t know if that is 100% true but I definitely feel that they have definitely taken the book up.
Elizabelle
This was a great thread. Thank you, Tey jackals, be you Ricardians or not.
Own a copy, and it just did not hold my interest first attempt. (That happens sometimes.). To give it another attempt, this fall, and then bedevil Subaru Dianne with questions and comments.
Really good comments about the misdirections of history.
Wondering if this is a point Hilary Mantel was trying to make, with resuscitating Thomas Cromwell, literarily, anyway. Take a man who was villainized, and look at it from his side. She laundered his reputation. Who is the unreliable narrator?
Henry 8th was appalling, once he decided to divorce Catherine of Aragon and moved on to Anne Boleyn. Were he not the father of Elizabeth I, history might deal with him far more harshly. Having your wives (plural) executed? Come on.
Sherparick
@Omnes Omnibus: Richard, Duke of York, whose grandfather was the first Duke of York, Edmund of Langley, son of Edward the III. His mother, Ann Mortimer was was also a great-granddaughter of Edward III through his second son, Lionel (hey, a different name for a Plantagenet!) The Henrys & Johns tend to be Lancastrians. There is one “George” Richard III young brother, who was executed by the older brother, Edward IV, who had a long list of bodies to his credit. Not for nothing did the War of Roses & Hundred Years War inspire George Martin’s “Game of Thrones.”
Paul in KY
@Sherparick: Pretty spot on! Just George was an older brother too of Richard’s. Edward, Edmund, George, Richard.
Pedantic Man away!
Tehanu
@Zelma: Thanks, I will check it out.