Messageboard
The Village Hall听 permalink
April Book Club
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by SequoiaTree (U2266143) on Thursday, 19th April 2012
The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey
Truth is the daughter of time 鈥 but what is the truth? To the historian, truth is a matter of sources, footnoted and cross-referenced, right back to the primary source 鈥 the eyewitness account. To the detective, truth is to be found by carefully examining the evidence, and by determining motive and opportunity. As for eyewitness accounts, these should be viewed with a large helping of salt! In this month鈥檚 book, both approaches to the truth are presented, in an attempt to solve one of the most famous of historical cold cases, the fate of the young sons of Edward IV, the Princes in the Tower. Not surprisingly, since the author, Josephine Tey, was one of the foremost detective writers of the mid-twentieth century, the detective鈥檚 approach wins out, and the historians are, collectively, criticized for their lack of understanding of human nature, among other failings.
Tey鈥檚 fictional detective, Inspector Grant, in hospital after being injured while on a case, becomes fascinated by a portrait of Richard III, which has little in common with the popularly held view of Richard as a monster, the archetypal wicked uncle, who murdered his brother鈥檚 children. With the help of a third type of Seeker After Truth, a researcher, he proves to his own satisfaction that Richard did not murder his nephews, and instead builds a case against Richard鈥檚 successor, Henry VII.
Below is a link to a portrait of Richard that seems very like the one described in the book:
-
Message 2
Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Thursday, 19th April 2012
Thanks for opening this month's discussion, Sequoia.
If anyone would like to introduce a book, please go to this thread which gives more information about the Book of the Month Club and also provides links to past discussions.
I'll be along tomorrow with my comments on the 'The Daughter of Time' . -
Message 3
Posted by blimbles (U2522058) on Friday, 20th April 2012
Thanks, Sequoia for opening this discussion.
Well, I finished this book yesterday and I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it.
If I'd picked it up in a shop, I'd have put it back down as the synopsis would not have appealed at all. However, I thought I'd give it a go for the book club and am very glad I did.
How fascinating! I like the twist on detection, with the detective holed up in hospital, with helpers bringing the necessary research materials, and the work going on inside the head of Grant (And his "woolly lamb").
Very well written and researched and has made want to look a bit more into that period of history. Josephine Tey manages to wear the reasearch she must have done for this lightly, probably because the research is through her main protagonists in the book.
I hadn't looked before I read it what date it was written (got the kindle version which piles straight into the book, with all the publishing details at the end) and so I did a bit of detection myself as to the books own period...words like "counterpane" shouted at me - lovely old, comforting words. Then the fact that they were smoking in hospital...and finally the reference to one of the villains that Grant's colleague had caught going to the gallows. I'm guessing in the 21st century, Grant might only have had a couple of days on a ward and been sent home - not enough to do this fabulous bit of detection.
In the end, which is the better way to do history? Probably a bit of both of these appraoches! The historians do take a bit of a bashing, though from Grant and Carradine.
Incidentally, I was half listening to the R4 programme last night where Neil MacGregor is looking at Shakespeare...and he at one point categorically stated that Richard III murdered the princes....and seemed to praise Henry VII for uniting the Yorks and Lancs houses. Interesting that these "facts" are held as solid today. As a result of reading this book, I felt a bit cross, and protective of Richard III! (Rightly, or wrongly, I don't know, but it is testament to how much this book has affected me.)
Thanks again for suggesting this book and also for the picture - I had been going to try and find one myself!
b -
Message 4
Posted by DSKIPJONES (U14823803) on Friday, 20th April 2012
It's a long time since I read 'The Daughter of Time' but I've found it to be one of those books that stays with you and has an influence that far outweighs any literary merit that it may have. I read two or three Josephine Tey novels on the bounce and from there moved on to the Appleby novels of Michael Innes which had just been republished at the time.
This has proved a very influential novel, I can't remember which it is but Colin Dexter wrote a Morse novel with a very similar set-up, the detective in hospital attempting to solve an historic (in this case I think, Victorian) murder mystery. One of Tey's novels is often repeated by 4 Extra in the crime and thrillers hour - I think it is 'The Whispering Sands'.
'The Daughter of Time' would make a really good multi-media drama, with pictures and ducuments on a 主播大秀 website while the story is unfolding over 90 or 120 minutes of radio. I often think that the interface between radio and the web has not as yet been adequately explored or achieved anything like its potential.
Thank you Sequoia for reminding me of this wonderful book. -
Message 5
Posted by Finally (U2221028) on Friday, 20th April 2012
Thanks for starting us off, Sequoia and to Bette, for keeping the book club running til we got to one of my favourite books. I first read this as a very yound teen, while still living abroad, and loved the whole story. And York.
So I was prepared when I came across the whole tudor/the victors write the history books in A-levels, and again with Shakespear's subjects changing under different sovereigns.
What can I say, I loved the book, and can't find anything to criticise.
I picked up a kindle copy to re-read in preparation and will have a go at a more reasoned appreciated when I have finished it: that鈥檚 likely to be later [much later] tonight. Meanwhile, I picked up another Josphine Tey 鈥渢o love and be wise鈥 I thought that I had read all hers, so finished that off yesterday and enjoyed every moment. I like to read a book just for pleasure first time and finish it quickly, then go back to savour and reflect on the experience.
I鈥檝e also been introduced to Nicola Upson鈥檚 Josephine Tey series, maybe not as great as the originals but I have enjoyed them. F xx -
Message 6
Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Friday, 20th April 2012
Just an initial comment, but I've been spending some time this morning looking up the history and at portraits of Richard III. I found this article particularly interesting (the editors have used a later portrait of Richard on the front cover of my copy).
This book certainly piqued my interest. I do find the family relationships of that time very difficult to keep in my head, but this book helped! -
Message 7
Posted by Tadpole (U2267185) on Friday, 20th April 2012
This book didn't appeal to me from the back cover description, but as I quite like other Josephine Teys, I gave it a go. Agree with comments upthread that there is a hard-to-define something about this book which stays with you - an elegant and engaging piece of writing. I was a bit irritated by the underlying premise that true character can be discerned through appearance, which smacked a bit of Victorian theories about low foreheads and Irish peasants and bumps on the head stuff, but once it got into the detection I enjoyed it.
I love Alan Grant as a character in the Singing Sands, but found him rather too waspish and condescending in this; perhaps he can be forgiven on account of his broken leg, but I found him less endearing in this than other books. Would have liked more scenes involving Marta, and more correspondence from cousin Laura - both very enjoyable characters.
For me, not my favourite Josephine Tey, but I admire the way she produced an engaging work from a very constraining set-up and with potentially very dry subject matter. -
Message 8
Posted by DisGraceNo3 (U15157107) on Friday, 20th April 2012
I have read this many times over the years and love it.
Tadpole ive not read the other Alan Grant novels (Ive no idea why - a trip to the library is called for I think) so I have nothing to compare against.
I do so agree that there is something in this book that stays with you - I really enjoyed the historical reseach, felt drawn into the story pulled along with the historical story and rejoyed in each discovery and really felt the characters pain when they realised 'people' knew.
One thing that has always stuck with me - being born and brought up in South Wales I was raised on the "truth" that Winston Churchill did indeed order the troops to fire at Tonypandy - what Tey says about history how it is written/handed down is very true
Perhaps in these days of instant mobile recording and messaging it could be argued that the "truth" is less subjective but any trawl through the internet shows, regardless of evidence to the contrary people believe what they want - just Google "mmr vaccine and autism" so see that
Mizze -
Message 9
Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Friday, 20th April 2012
I read this book in my early teens, not long before we got to Richard III in history. I was able to point out that Richard didn't do it. My history teacher was very decent about it. Another classmate had also read it and agreed with the verdict, so the rest of the class were given the details and encouraged to read it. I loved it, and had the same contempt for the "sainted More", but had to reconsider More when I read "Portrait of an Unknown Woman".
I found the point about looking for motive, and cui bono - who benefits very illuminating. If Richard didn't have anything to gain from killing them, because of Edward's prior secret marriage to Eleanor Butler making them illegitimate, then keeping them in the Tower for their own safety made good sense. The Tower was a refuge for Royals as well as a prison for traitors for centuries. Henry had more reason to kill them as his claim to the throne was tenuous without the additional claim of his wife, sister to the princes. Even so, it needn't have been either of them, but "a well wisher" who did the deed without reference to his principal.
One year I went with O/H for a couple of days in London while he was on a two day course. I asked my cousin what was free to see, and he suggested the National Portrait gallery and the Queen's Gallery, (round the back of Buck house on the Left hand side facing the place). The portraits in the NPG had Richard and Henry VII one above the other. (quite small really), and Henry looked nasty and Richard looked nice. At the QG, at B H, the portrait of Richard was the crookback one looking sinister, and the Henry was handsome and tawny. I just thought it was interesting and for all I know they swop them over from time to time.
Tonypandy was again a scandal that was widely misreported, as was Enoch Powell's Rivers of Blood speech. He actually said that you have to make proper provision for people you bring in to do the dirty jobs - or else. I know, I listened to it. And nearly everyone was fooled by the WMD excuse for the Iraq War.
The book was fun to read, and I have read it a couple of times since. I have read nearly all of hers, and I think I liked Brat Farrar best after this. The Singing Sands was the nicest Grant book after this, and you got to meet Laura. -
Message 10
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
I bought this recently because as a Wars-of-the-Roses enthusiast it was a serious lack in my reading. I asked my sister (Boris of this parish) about it first, as she did it at school as a counterpoint to shakespeare's Richard III - her first thought was 'you'll find it very dated'.
And so it was, but in an enjoyable way, much as Agatha Christie is dated. Did people really spend months flat on their backs after breaking their legs, even then? (I suppose so, thinking of 'Rear Window'). It's an entertaining way to 'do history', to express it as a detective story, and her characters (ie the 'modern' ones involved in the hunt) were believable and sympathetic.
But as to the history...well, it's as much a one-sided take as many others, and devotedly follows the Ricardian revisionist line that was very popular then. Since then a crucial bit of contemporary evidence (Mancini) has emerged, that Tey was either unaware of or didn't use, which supports the traditional view and all the recent (non-fiction) stuff I've read goes along with this. (The strapline for the biog of Anne Neville I'm reading now says "does little for Richard III's tattered reputation")
But I enjoyed it as a 50s detective tale, and its message about questioning your sources is as valid in history as in detective work, I guess. -
Message 11
Posted by DisGraceNo3 (U15157107) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
I bought this recently because as a Wars-of-the-Roses enthusiast it was a serious lack in my reading. I asked my sister (Boris of this parish) about it first, as she did it at school as a counterpoint to shakespeare's Richard III - her first thought was 'you'll find it very dated'.
And so it was, but in an enjoyable way, much as Agatha Christie is dated. Did people really spend months flat on their backs after breaking their legs, even then? (I suppose so, thinking of 'Rear Window'). It's an entertaining way to 'do history', to express it as a detective story, and her characters (ie the 'modern' ones involved in the hunt) were believable and sympathetic.
But as to the history...well, it's as much a one-sided take as many others, and devotedly follows the Ricardian revisionist line that was very popular then. Since then a crucial bit of contemporary evidence (Mancini) has emerged, that Tey was either unaware of or didn't use, which supports the traditional view and all the recent (non-fiction) stuff I've read goes along with this. (The strapline for the biog of Anne Neville I'm reading now says "does little for Richard III's tattered reputation")
But I enjoyed it as a 50s detective tale, and its message about questioning your sources is as valid in history as in detective work, I guess.
听 I think though that Tey is inviting you to question her research too - that passed me by on first read but when I read it a few years later I wondered whether she is saying - "this is my alternative history/story, but how much am I leaving out/misrepresenting"? And "how much can you trust my version without finding out for yourself"
Mizze -
Message 12
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
Absolutely, Mizze. As Seqouia tree's OP says
To the historian, truth is a matter of sources, footnoted and cross-referenced, right back to the primary source 鈥 the eyewitness account. To the detective, truth is to be found by carefully examining the evidence, and by determining motive and opportunity.
..... Not surprisingly ......... the detective鈥檚 approach wins out, and the historians are, collectively, criticized for their lack of understanding of human nature, among other failings. 听
And we have to remember that added to the historian/detective mix, Tey's work is fiction - and fiction writers, unlike the other two, have the privilege of using or ignoring evidence as they choose (much as Shakespeare did). -
Message 13
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
do find the family relationships of that time very difficult to keep in my head, but this book helped! 听
Bette, if you like historical fiction (& don't mind a romantic angle) try 'The Sunne in Splendour' by Sharon Penman. It's a very comprehensive account of the WOTR, & also has very definitie views about Who Did It, but you will know your Nevilles from your Staffords by the end of it! -
Message 14
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
I found the point about looking for motive, and cui bono - who benefits very illuminating. 听
Likewise, Rwth.
It is interesting to consider the choices made by Tey for her novel: a detective from Scotland Yard and a young American researcher. So both coming with vague knowledge and an interest prompted, in Grant' s case, by a portrait. Grant's work made the study of faces his stock in trade. Others includng a doctor, a hospital matron, a nurse and an actress have views which surprise them when told the man is Richard 111, infamous for [allegedly] killing his nephews. -
Message 15
Posted by Rusters (U11225963) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
Thank you for choosing this book, SequoiaTree. I've loved it from the time I first read it, in my early teens. On the first occasion, it knocked me for six because before then I took it for granted that Richard III was an all round bad guy, and was responsible for the murder of the young princes.
Each time I read the book, I get something different from it. I have to say, like Tadpole (message 7), I too am "irritated by the underlying premise that true character can be discerned through appearance, which smacked a bit of Victorian theories about low foreheads etc", i That passed me by as a teenager, though.
However it has reminded me of research which seems to prove that in trials, attractive people (not just scrubbed up for court) tend to be found not guilty more often, and they also tend to be handed down more lenient sentences. Not sure how the first of these, particularly, can be measured with much accuracy though.
Back to Richard, even if he was all the historians say he was, does that make him much different from other kings and would-be kings of those turbulent times? I can imagine that if you you feel you have a shot (or have some entitlement) at being King, and you have people urging and supporting you - and perhaps you feel you have a divine right too - then everything that follows seems logical, both in the taking and the keeping of the crown.
It's only on more recent re-reading the book that I've concentrated as much on Inspector Grant in hospital, which was a very different experience to any I've witnessed. Imagine: two designated nurses, and a doctor who treats you as a real human being.
Actually, I'm not that keen on Grant and, on the whole, I prefer Tey's plots and writing style (old-fashioned though it seems today) to her characters. Apart from Daughter...... my favourite books of hers are her stand alone thrillers: Brat Farrar and, especially, The Franchise Affair, though the latter does make me cringe in places in its depiction of the lower orders.
Rusty -
Message 16
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
The discussions continue.
-
Message 17
Posted by Auntie Prue (U14585893) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
The Red Queen by Philippa Gregory also deals with this subject. She strongly implicates Margaret Beaufort who stopped at nothing to get her son on the throne.
... and the there is C J Sansom's Sovereign which deals with the idea that Edward IV's father was a French archer, and that perhaps Richard did do it after all.
A bit of history that just keeps giving : ) -
Message 18
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
It's only on more recent re-reading the book that I've concentrated as much on Inspector Grant in hospital, which was a very different experience to any I've witnessed. Imagine: two designated nurses, and a doctor who treats you as a real human being. 听
I did have a little empathy with Grant. I was in hospital as a teenager, flat on my back with my eyes bandaged for a week. Can't recall too much about it except that sausages are easy to eat when in such a position!. The nurses were gentle and other people on the ward came and read to me. Not sure if any of that would happen now. . -
Message 19
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
<> A bit of history that just keeps giving : ) <>
How true! I often wonder why Sky (or the american equivalent) invented 'Game of Thrones' when they had a perfect real life example to use. Far more interesting than 'The Tudors'.
FWIW I don't believe all the hunchback monster stuff, but Richard was a fairly ruthless operator who seized the throne when the opportunity presented itself, and was not averse to eliminating his rivals fairly swiftly if needed. I'm open minded on the Princes, but he was responsible for their safety, so he failed in that if nothing else. -
Message 20
Posted by Rusters (U11225963) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
Gosh that must have been a frightening experience, SJ. On a lighter note: I'm guessing they weren't veggie sausages, because they disinegrate something chronic!
I've just been browising the Richard III Society site; definite food for thought. I can't see how there could ever be a definitive answer, but I do find it fascinating. I'm very cheered to by the recommendations in the thread for further reading too.
Rusty -
Message 21
Posted by Bette (U2222559) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
I gather that one shoulder was slightly higher than another.
I get the message from the book that it was the Tudors who blackened Richard's name and reputation, but what struck me most in reading the book, but Grant /Tey didn't seem to make much of an issue about the extraordinary fact that (quoting from wiki here):
Arrangements began to be made for Edward's coronation on 22 June.
However, before the young king could be crowned, Edward IV's marriage to the boys' mother Elizabeth Woodville was publicly declared to be invalid, making their children illegitimate and ineligible for the throne. On 25 June an assembly of lords and commoners endorsed these claims. The following day Richard III officially began his reign.听
How come the first wife was not known about, or proclaimed, before that? The timing of the declaration was rather carefully managed, was it not?
Now, I've barely mentioned the book, but I must admit that the format in which it was written was very well conceived and executed. It certainly makes me want to read more by the author. -
Message 22
Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
Richard was a gifted general, and the crookback may have resulted from a childhood infection, but he was taken into the household of Richard Neville, and taught to fight. If there was a weakness there, the daily work of swordfighting could have developed/misshaped his shoulder muscles so that one was a bit more developed than the other. More obvious in an otherwise slender body. If they want to spread vile rumours about you, they need something to base it on, or you can just laugh it off with the evidence to the contrary.
Richard's people in York loved him very much, and a visit to Middleham Castle near Richmond is a delight. It is a nice castle, and although ruined, gives plenty of ammunition for the idea that he was very happy there in his childhood and teens. Margaret Beaufort was a cousin of Richard's mother. All grandchildren of the 4 Beaufort children of Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt. -
Message 23
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Saturday, 21st April 2012
The first 'wife' was not exactly a marriage but a betrothal or plight-troth, which was a binding 'agreement to marry' prior to the actual ceremony of marriage. I think (but not sure) a different level of legal process was needed to dissolve betrothal and marriage,
Edward IV supposedly was secretly betrothed to Eleanor Butler, but never married her. He then married his queen, Elizabeth Woodville - a fact he kept secret for months before confessing to his senior ministers (so he had 'form' for secret liaisons). Eleanor Butler kept quiet about it and conveniently died early, but a Bishop, Stillington, knew about it, and spilled the beans to Richard when he thought he might makebe able to make use of the information. -
Message 24
Posted by Hesperus (U14543047) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Bette - if you have ever done any dressmaking I am sure you will have noticed that nobody ever seems to have totally symetrical shoulders - one is always higher than the other - by a good one inch in my case - but I don't think that anyone ever notices.
Sorry - that was an irrelevance and alI really wanted to say was that along with some others here, I read the book years ago and do remember it - and do remember enjoying it. It is a really original idea and brought home to me how much can be accomplished by research and logic.
Would also like to recommend the Nichola Upson books - really good reads. -
Message 25
Posted by Herb Robert (U14072548) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
I first read this book in a World Books edition that my parents had; anyone remember those? They were hard-backs which were issued, I believe, after the War and we had shelves full of them. They must have been the popular series before paperbacks were invented.
Sorry, I digress. History and historical fiction generally leave me feeling completely cold and blank. I have no interest in any of the kings and queens of our lands and cannot do much more than open the pages of historical fiction and then close them again. So it was with a heavy heart that I started reading this again for the book club, expecting to be able to lay into all its failings. I had no recollection of the book and thought it was going to be a dry-as-dust imagined contemporary account of Richard's reign.
Well, what a surprise it was! I really loved it, particularly the beautifully paced and structured setting and the overwhelming lesson (which I'm sure passed me by when I first read it as a lad) that "facts" need to be questioned and assessed on the basis of first-hand evidence. I did from time to time glaze over at the mention of the various royals, but one finger at the page of the family tree kept me right and didn't detract from the reading experience at all.
Tey has an arch sense of humour and this leaven spread throughout the book was a delight. Here's an example of one phrase that really tickled me; at the end of chapter 5 Grant muses on the character of Richard's brother George: "George could obviously be talked into anything. He was the born missionee."
I read The Franchise Affair in the same World Books series but can remember nothing of that either. Maybe I should search out a copy again. In response to a couple of comments upthread, the book was first published in 1951 and the Penguin paperback copy I managed to get hold of has a portrait of Richard on the front cover which I think is probably later than the one linked to above, though it is in the National Portrait Gallery according to the acknowledgment. "My" portrait certainly shows a face, in Matron's words, "full of the most dreadful suffering."
Anyway, thanks Sequoia Tree for a very interesting read. I'm really glad I overcame my initial lack of enthusiasm. -
Message 26
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Herb Robert, the first Penguin paperback was published in 1935.
I liked 'Tink' with her judgement of important events 'not worth putting on my blue'. I had an aunt who judged events by whether or not she would wear her grandmother's brooch. -
Message 27
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Thankyou everyone for this thread about one of my favourite books in the world, and a book to which I owe an awful lot.
I picked it up idly in a bookshop near the National Library of Scotland one day during my HND in Archaeology, on a break from researching an essay. I got it because I'd read a couple of Teys and enjoyed them, but nothing prepared me for this one.
I knew about C20th propaganda, but somehow had got the impression this was a modern thing like concentration camps, kind of late 19th or 20th century. When I read about Henry's court historian, Polydore Virgil, destroying books rather than return them to the university libraries, I was deeply shocked. I just hadn't known it went that far back (yes, I know, naive for a 22-year-old!).
It made me question everything I took for granted about the world. It literally changed my outlook on life.
I also set to and over the next few terms I carefully read everything that Grant does, from my dad's schoolboy copy of Our Island Story to the Paston LEtters in the original spelling. My parents got used to letters home written with a home-cut quill starting "richy wel-beloued parents..."! And occasional furious postcards almost illegible with indignation on some specific point (such as Worm-Features Morton).
I also read one or two books published since Tey wrote, and my conclusion from all the evidence I could find in 1991-2 was that there is a) no evidence at all that Richard murdered the Princes and b) a great deal of evidence to suggest Henry Usurping Bar-steward Tudor did.
Message 4 - the Morse book is The Wench Is Dead.
Message 5 - yes, I enjoy the Nicola Upson books too. As you say, they aren't Tey, but then they aren't trying to be!
Message 7 "I was a bit irritated by the underlying premise that true character can be discerned through appearance, which smacked a bit of Victorian theories about low foreheads and Irish peasants and bumps on the head stuff, but once it got into the detection I enjoyed it. " In one of the other books it is explained a bit more/ better - Grant doesn't believe any specific features indicate criminal tendencies, but he believes that those with habitual criminal tendencies are also those who evade taking responsibility, and it is this that he looks for in a face. He says something like, "only the idiot has no lines upon his face" by which he means the man who never reasons beyond his own needs, which cross-threading is one strongly-supported view of criminal motives today.
So it isn't Bertillon-ism, but rather looking at the signs left on a face by how someone has lived their life - "by the time she is forty, a woman has the face she deserves" only applied to his particular field of work.
General reply - several people have commented on the weeks in bed with a broken leg - I thought it was a broken leg /plus/ a "concussed spine" from the fall - or rather the landing, I suppose!
laura -
Message 28
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Richard was a fairly ruthless operator who seized the throne when the opportunity presented itself, and was not averse to eliminating his rivals fairly swiftly if needed.听
He 'eliminated' abnormally few people during his two years. I remember 20 years ago cross-referencing things on a chart and compared to kings before and after, he had almost nobody executed.
Also, as far as I could establish, with an extra half-century's publications in addition to what Tey had, he didn't seize the throne at all, but pretty much stood back politely until he was asked.
I'm open minded on the Princes, but he was responsible for their safety, so he failed in that if nothing else.听
Very, very little suggests the Princes were dead by the time Richard died.
Really rather a lot suggests they out-lived him.
laura -
Message 29
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
"My" portrait certainly shows a face, in Matron's words, "full of the most dreadful suffering."听
My interest in Tey's theories and months of research reading brought me into contact with another young woman who loved Richard and she introduced me to her late C15th re-enactment group, which led directly to my current Sealed Knot hobby and thus to the contentment of being with My Young Man whom i met through that... Thankyou, Miss Tey...
The friend at college gave me a postcard of the National Portrait Gallery picture and I enlarged it as an oil painting for her, a foot square. Another friend of hers made it a deep, deep gilded frame and even though I'm no great artist, once framed like that it looked wonderful. And, yes, a face full of the most dreadful suffering, I agree.
I have a canvas bought specially for me to paint myself one, but have never done it yet, two decades later!
laura -
Message 30
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
So how do explain Hastings, Laura?
-
Message 31
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
I didn't say "none"!
But a small enough number of executions and imprisonments to be remarkable when compared to others near him in time. -
Message 32
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Well laura I'm intrigued by what counts as remarkably few when it comes to executions. Hastings, Rivers, Grey, Vaughan, Buckingham in his first six months or so was good going even by C15 standards.
-
Message 33
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Have a look sometime at Henry U.B-s. Tudor's rate of executions, as Tey commented, but also at Edward IV who most sources I've read agree ordered the execution of his brother (the famous Butt of Malmsey Clarence) and over half agree he also arranged Henry VI's death, as well as ordering a fair number of executions outwith his immediate circle. Henry U.B-s Tudor's son, Henry VIII, also had a pretty hefty execution rate.
iirc, I listed them each, with all the execution orders I could find and then divided the total for each monarch by the number of years reigned to get a kind of annual average. Richard's annual rate of executions was much lower than those who went before or after.
It was twenty years ago I went into it, but I did it obsessively for about 8 or 10 months, systematically getting hold of everything possible and then tracking the references they gave and so on. Because of my shock at Polydore Virgil, I was questioning everything I could and really hunting for evidence that would stand up in court, almost as though I was determined to prove Tey wrong and somehow get rid of my horrified discovery that people lied in books all those centuries ago.
laura -
Message 34
Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
Thanks Laura for your persistence. Of course, testing the Tey theory to destruction did rather rehabilitate her reputation as a historian, and it is the scientific method. If you can't destroy the hypothesis, it makes it to a Theory!
I am still glad I read it and I too thought that Grant had injured his back, not just his leg when he landed after the fall. I liked the randomness of his sampling of opinion from various visitors as to the character of Richard. When I went to the National Portrait Gallery, they were having a Van Dyck exhibition, and without a programme, I concentrated on the faces. You could tell who was intelligent, and who was not so. Which couple really deserved each other too! I tend to mistrust those with no lines on their faces too. If people haven't frowned over the pros and cons of their life choices, it suggests that they can't evaluate, but just do as they are told without question, or just what they feel like doing.
I still like Richard III, who was (probably) a good king - or would have been if he had been spared. -
Message 35
Posted by Herb Robert (U14072548) on Sunday, 22nd April 2012
I love that! It is exactly what the book is about - I had been imagining in my head all sorts of theories about books (hard back and paper back) and there is the perfect reply: a concrete fact (or is it? I haven't checked.) Great stuff.
-
Message 36
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
I wonder what it is that arouses such passions! I quite agree that Edward IV and Henrys VII and VII were similarly ruthless, although they reigned much longer (and Eddie IV was criticised for being too forgiving earlier in his reign). It was a fairly torrid time to be any kind of leader or politician.
I don't feel I have to be 'pro' or 'anti' Richard - I enjoyed Tey (& of course it wasn't 'her' theory) and thoroughly enjoyed the aforementioned Sunne in Splendour, in which Richard is a wonderful romantic hero. I'd love that version to be true, but all my history reading (sparked by the fiction) has convinced me that it almost certainly isn't.
I'm afraid that my main conclusion is that most if not all the protagonists in the WOTR were motivated by greed and self-interest - eg Clarence's & Richard's unseemly squabbling over the Warwick inheritance - long before the question of Richard's kingship came up - paints neither in a very good light. It was very much kill or be killed, and I reckon the opportunist Tudor only survived because he was last man standing. -
Message 37
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
PS this argument has been going on since 1619 - this is quite a good summary:
-
Message 38
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
I wonder what it is that arouses such passions!听
Going back to the book as a book, I think partly it is that there is an injustice (Richard was unfairly singled out as "a monster" amongst others who behaved worse) but also that Tey writes so engagingly that you are drawn in and start feeling what the protagonists feel.
I think "engaging" is often used to mean "charming" or "sweet" with reference to books, but in this case I think it is the correct word because the book engages the reader, as various people have said upthread. That must be down to how she writes, but I'm darned if I can put a finger on anything and say "there! That's how she does it!".
I think that's why it's a book that stays with people over time.
laura -
Message 39
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Oh yes, I think Tey did an excellent job - presumably bringing the story to a new audience and making it (the mindbogglingly confusing WOTR) comprehensible. After all the revisionist/traditional debate had been going on for ages.
Maybe because I read it only recently (having read a lot of other stuff) rather than as my introduction to the WOTR, it doesn't mean as much to me as it obviously does to many others. There are books that do that to you - eg Anya Seton's 'Katherine' which was my introduction to the historical fiction genre & one I still re read pretty often. I find it hard to let go my Seton-inspired ideas about John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford when reading 'proper' biographies. -
Message 40
Posted by Rwth of the Cornovii (U2570790) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
How true Ermintrude. I hated Alison Weir's biography of Katherine. Damning with faint praise in my opinion, but I read it when I was 13, and possibly before Daughter of Time. Perhaps the "Changeling" libel about John of Gaunt was at the root of the War of the Roses, but Edward III's large Royal family of active sons, all fit to rule can't have benefited the State.
Being King was not an easy task at any time, and the absolute monarchy was just as fraught with difficulty. I don't actually think the Divine Right of Kings had a really high profile until Charles I, whose queen Henrietta Maria egged on this tiny man to become more autocratic than was safe. As now, Kings (and queens) ruled by consent. The Privy Council makes the decision (where doubt exists) over whether the next in line is fit to rule, if the monarch didn't line up their own successor. If there are enough dissenters in high places, witnesses can be found to testify whether the candidate is legitimate or not. Expert witnesses can always be found to say that the gestation of a human infant is nine months and that premature or late birth can not be regarded as legitimate, (though recorded late births have very rarely gone on to the 11th month.) Miscarrying of one twin can make the survivor appear not to be legitimate.
So this book certainly opened up the debate over Richard as the perpetrator of the murder of the Princes in the Tower - not to historians, but to the general public and has done history a good service, even for all its faults. Holocaust deniers don't get away with it as easily as they would otherwise, even when they are professional historians. Programmes like "More or Less" about the validity of statistics are better received than they would be by people who blindly accepted what they were told. -
Message 41
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
ermintrude, where does the Richard debate stand in 2012?.
I agree about Seton's 'Katherine'. Perhaps most of us read the book when we were very young and it left an indelible mark. -
Message 42
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Gosh Silverjenny I've no idea - I wouldn't pretend to be any kind of expert! I just enjoy reading around this period, and the stuff I've read seems to fall down on the side of him seizing the throne fairly aggressively. I guess one of the problems for writers these days is they have to nail their colours to one or other viewpoint over the Princes, as if this was the only event that mattered. And it'll never be settled one way or the other (which will keep them in business I suppose).
-
Message 43
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Amazing to think Richard was king for only two years and we are still left wondering what happened. And if you throw in Perkin Warbeck and Lambert Simnell the historians and writers can never draw a line under the story. Very good for business.
Thank you for the choice of book, SequoiaTree. It is my first venture into the Book club and an interesting one too. -
Message 44
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Yes, I suppose all modern writers on the subject must give a vote of thanks to Polydore Vergil, More and Shakespeare - if they hadn't created the 'evil' cariacature we probably wouldn't be so fascinated by him today.
(I can never understand why people think the Tudors are more interesting than this lot!) -
Message 45
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
I can never understand why people think the Tudors are more interesting than this lot!听
Me neither!!
And even if it's because Enery the Eighth was a hunk in youth, they can have Edward IV as the FAR more gorgeous hunk who hunted and womanised like crazy!
And if it's the political intrigue they like in the Tudors - you can't /move/ for falling over people in privy back stairs plotting and swapping kings around in the C15th! -
Message 46
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Edward IV as the FAR more gorgeous hunk who hunted and womanised like crazy!听
AND won every battle he ever entered. What's not to like?
Still I always reckon Henry VIII had more Plantagenet/Woodville blood in him than Tudor.... -
Message 47
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
This forthcoming novel looks as it will be interesting.
-
Message 48
Posted by Lady Trudie Tilney Glorfindel Maldini (U2222312) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Yes, I'm waiting for that one, silverjenny, having read the first 3 in the series. (I'm not a huge fan of PG's first-person narration, but I really liked the last one about Jacquetta Woodville)
I got the companion non-fiction book for Christmas (3 mini-biogs of the main characters) and what was really interesting was Gregory's lengthy introduction, on themes such as history vs. historical fiction (very relevant to the Tey book!), and the role of women in retelling it.
Sorry, must stop going on....... -
Message 49
Posted by Silver Jenny (U12795676) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
Laura, which period are you involved with in the reenactments?.
-
Message 50
Posted by Miftrefs Laura in Lothian bufily ftitching (U2587870) on Monday, 23rd April 2012
These days, it's the good old Sealed Knot and all the Cromwell and Charles I stuff, Jenny - I'm a firm non-combatant so my main interest is in the clothing of the period and the kind of "archaeology of housekeeping" so to speak. I knew absolutely sod-all when I started, but had enjoyed my brief foray in the very early 1990s into the 15th century so thought I'd give it a whirl - and love it!
I've just spent several months researching the garments women wore on their upper body, known then as a "waistcoat" although it has sleeves and often extends to hip-length. Then I used hand-woven wool cloth and unbleached linen, both woven to widths used in the period, and made my own pattern and am really pleased with the lovely and comfortable result - a fitted bodice that closes down the front with hooks and eyes, continuing to hip-length with four triangular gores inserted to make it wider over my big skirts, and then the sleeves are just below elbow-length, very full, gathered into a narrow band. All handsewn with linen thread and great enjoyment!
Here I am - I have to make better skirts ('petticoats' at the time even when not worn under another one) as they should be a bit fuller. I used cheap fabric five years ago when I first made my kit, and it's showing!
It's a wonderful hobby - last August found me skinning a roe deer, which the public loved - then I pan-fried the fillets for the officers and the rest of us had some in the stew with pearl barley and kale and onion, and we slow-roasted a back leg each of the two days over the wood fire, which was utterly gorgeous.
Also, the weekends spent away from artificial lighting, sound and so on seem to really relax my autistic tendencies, so my parents love it when I come back
laura
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.