Please help with...Josephine Tey's The daughter of time (about the princes in the tower)?

Question

I'm doing this paper on the Princes in the Tower after reading Josephine Tey's Daughter of time. Maybe I'm not very good at researching because it's taking me a long time to find some good information on the subject. Could someone please help me to these two questions?
1. What was Josephine Tey's primary historical purpose for writing "The Daughter of Time"?
2. What are the different view points, interpretations and other aspects of the historical situation?

If you would kindly post the sites with the information I need, I would gladly appreciate it!!!

What's the Dominic Mancini's letter of 1483?

Answer 1

[1] When first I read "The Daughter of Time" over 40 years ago, it converted me into an ardent supporter of Richard III.

A surprising conversion to result from a detective novel, because until then everything that I thought I knew about Richard insisted that, of all the dreadful kings that from time to time occupied England's throne, Richard was by far the worst.

But that, of course, was Josephine Tey's purpose. To conjure up a book that was not only an interesting detective novel; but also - and much more significantly - a forensic review of the evidence on which "history" had convicted Richard of being England's most evil king, ever. Ms. Tey's work convinced me that much of what I thought I knew about Richard was nothing more than Tudor dynastic propaganda, aimed at justifying their seizure of the throne by force.

So, that is why Josephine Tey wrote "The Daughter of Time". To get people like me to read a detective novel ... but to end up understanding that history is indeed written by the winners - and that "history" of that pedigree often has little connection to the truth.

[2] Thanks very largely to the impact that "The Daughter of Time" had on a generation or so of historians, there are now three very different major view points about Richard III amongst professional historians: -
[a] There is the "pro-Tudor" school, who by and large continue to accept nearly all of the More / Shakespeare version of Richard as a murderous, scheming villain.
[b] There is the "Richard III Society" school, who by and large insist that the More / Shakespeare version of Richard is a propaganda fabrication ... and that Henry VII was the true villain of the era.
[c] And then there is the "Middle Ground" school, who examine the evidence for-and-against both Richard III and Henry VII ... and conclude that there simply isn't enough believable evidence to convict either one of them of the murder of the Princes in the Tower. Interestingly, this school includes the Supreme Court of the United States ... although only in a 1997 mock trial by three of the Justices, Rehnquist, Ginsberg and Breyer.

-----

If the story of Richard's villainy was a concoction, why was it so determinedly spread?
Quite simply ... because Henry Tudor had absolutely no right to be sitting on the throne of England when he had himself crowned as Henry VII. He was not a member of the Plantagenet dynasty that had ruled England since 1154, and after Richard's death in battle there were still other Plantagenets alive with a much better claim to the throne than Henry had: (they did not survive for long though - Henry saw to that too). The only way that Henry could try to justify his seizure of the throne was to paint Richard as a black villain, using the excuse that rebelling against and killing such an awful monster was a grim necessity.

----

As to sources. The Richard III Society website listed in the first answer is excellent. But it does, naturally, argue for only one point of view on the controversy. I list a few others below to offer some opposing opinions.

---------------

EDIT / ADDED July 29.

Your query about the Mancini "letter". There is an open question in History on that very subject right now. Go to to the answers to that question for some details.

Answer 2

Here's a Web site that's run by a group in England trying to improve the historical impressions of Richard III.

To sum it all up. some believe (including Shakespeare) that he killed his nephews to ensure he would get the crown. Others say he wasn't that evil and he rightly obtained the crown.

Check out this Web site and it will be of great help to you. It mentions the book you read on the "Why a Richard III Society page." There's also am American branch that you will find if you Google "Richard III Society." You can learn a lot about this last Plantagenet and the various opinions on him.

Answer 3

I think you've already got some good sources to get you started. So I'll just share some thoughts, caveats, etc. on how to think through what you read.

First, do NOT be quick to dismiss any major viewpoint.

It is possible the bias of some, even all Riccardians, makes for poor history -- but, "holocaust deniers"?? That's excessive, and a convenient way to belittle and dismiss those with whom you disagree. In fact, BOTH sides (or all three, if you opt for the agnostic middle ground) make some good points that the other side has trouble with. The evidence is, quite simply, not that simple!! Much is missing in accounts that would helps us. .and we have to keep in mind how the Tudor victory could shape the surviving records, not to mention the stories told later. . . all of which is precisely why this remains an intriguing debate and a MYSTERY. Anyone who suggests it's a slam dunk insults the careful efforts of many scholars of VARIOUS opinions. (Further, an implicit comparison of Richard with Hitler is absurd. The ONLY people Richard is accused of doing away with are political rivals, not hordes of innocents.)

Those who tend toward buying every piece of Shakespeare's dramatic caricature of Richard (and note it is *dramatic* - I'm not sure Shakespeare himself believed it to THAT extent!) are being just as irresponsible when they fail to acknowledge, for example, that Richard had quite a GOOD record of supporting his brother in war, and of looking out for the interests of the people 'under his care' in the North. (I think it is partly this 'memory', not just local pride that has gained Riccardians a modern day following in that region.)

There IS the option, for instance, of believing Richard was involved in the death of his nephews AND that he had done some good and noble things! I would encourage you to allow for that more complex, less simplistic picture of ALL the people involved as you work through the helpful set of links manxminnjack (and the books they point to).

Actually, a number of these sources, whether they think Richard is innocent or guilty of this particular act, are far more nuanced. In other words, even if we think we have the answer to the question "who was responsible for the death of the princes?" this does NOT give us a full portrait of the person(s) we settle on.

It seems to me the Richard debate is a good example of polar camps seeming to agree that a debated character must have been EITHER the blackest, purest villain OR angelic.

As for the 1483 Mancini letter, Xamanator misses a couple of key things:
1) It is not at all clear that Tey "ignored" it. The letter only came to light in the 1930s, and though Tey's book was published in the 50s, she BASED it on a scholarly work from 1903, long before anyone knew of the letter.

2) The letter is hardly the rock solid proof X seems to suggest.
a) its statements are not as clearly and strongly against Richard as some imply
b) he was NOT an eyewitness but depended on other witnesses with a pro-Tudor bias

If you want a nice overview of the letter, and links to the issue of its author's value as a "witness", manxminnjack has provided this in answer to another recent question -- see http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Am1VktTSXzUHwnqptdwclhPty6IX?qid=20070726050824AAm4Azm

Another point to consider -- which some in the debate seem to forget-- interpret Richard (or Henry's?) possible act here in some historical perspective. Take a look at the whole ERA (at least that of he Plantagenets and perhaps behind) and how kings often established themselves, dealt with rivals, etc. And consider other times and places in history where it was common ("normal" in a sense) to have rivals and their main supporters dispatched, even if the person consolidating his power was related (as rival claimants typcially are!) Call it "a major blind spot" and moral failing if you will, but don't simply interpret and evaluate it in light of what WE would do, tolerate, etc. TODAY.

_____________________________

By the way, an interesting detail or two about Tey's TITLE. The motto/proverb it is based on -- "Truth is the daughter of time", a translatoin of the Latin Veritas temporas filia." That motto, it turns out, was very popular during the period of the TUDORS.

In particular, the last two Tudor rulers made significant use of it to support their claims to the throne (as well as their claims to be supporters of the TRUE religion, whether Catholicism [Mary] or Elizabeth [Protestantism]). It was included in Mary's royal seal, and made a central theme in a drama performed at Elizabeth's coronation.

Also, an Anglicized version of the proverb -- 'time trieth truth' appears in the writings of Thomas Moore, and in the context of mentioning someone accused of MURDER eventually being proved innocent! (Tey readers will know that Tey is particularly critical of Moore's pro-Tudor account and its accusations of Richard.)

I do not know whether she chose the title with knowledge of the irony, or it was just "dumb luck", but it has always intrigued me.

Mary
http://uregina.ca/~blackstm/CUP.htm
http://hfriedberg.web.wesleyan.edu/shakespeare/maryt.htm
http://www.irishcoinage.com/M00170.HTM

Elizabeth
http://www.shu.ac.uk/emls/09-1/leahmulc.html - point 9
http://www.wfu.edu/~caron/ssrs/hoak.doc

Moore
"Supplication of Souls", *Complete Works of St. Thomas More *, vol 7, p. 135

Answer 4

You ought to know that Ricardians are a bit like holocaust deniers - it is not serious history.
Richard had the Princes killed.
Tey ignored a number of sources, notably Dominic Mancini's letter of 1483.