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

[Bookpossum]

Thanks for that great find, Catlady. I can see I shall be busy having a look tomorrow!

I think I read the Kendall biography after reading The Daughter of Time as that would have been back in the 1960s I think.

Tey in turn was inspired by a biography of Richard III written by Sir Clements Markham, called Richard III: His Life and Character: Reviewed in the Light of Recent Research. A catchy title! It was written in about 1906 and is available in Project Gutenberg if anyone is interested.

[BenG]

I saw a TV program about finding Richard's burial place and the excavation. They had a Richard III Society representative on hand when the forensic expert confirmed that Richard did indeed have a crooked spine. The Society member started crying at the news as if her world was turned upside down.

[Wearever]

This is interesting we're all looking at the mock trials for Richard III . I did the same last night after Bookpossum mentioned one. I had no idea they had them. The one I watched wasn't very good, I think the attorney that represented, the defence was nervous and botched the dates and names, because William Rehnquist Chief Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. was one of the Judges. Lol. I would be too.This was also an older video done in 1996 at Indiana Law School. I would like to see one done in England though.

[Victoria]

(Sorry - hit post too soon)

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wearever

This is interesting we're all looking at the mock trials for Richard III . I did the same last night after Bookpossum mentioned one. I had no idea they had them. The one I watched wasn't very good, I think the attorney that represented, the defence was nervous and botched the dates and names, because William Rehnquist Chief Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. was one of the Judges. Lol. I would be too.This was also an older video done in 1996 at Indiana Law School. I would like to see one done in England though.

It’s a great choice for moot court. No one knows what actually happened to the boys and the Richard seems to inspire passion both ways.

I’ve just peeked at Catlady’s neat website. The trail takes place in England. The actual Duke of Gloucester gives the introduction. It looks like fun.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by BenG

I saw a TV program about finding Richard's burial place and the excavation. They had a Richard III Society representative on hand when the forensic expert confirmed that Richard did indeed have a crooked spine. The Society member started crying at the news as if her world was turned upside down.

I don't get the emotional attachments some have about Richard III. It was 500 yrs. ago after all. I enjoy a good debate on the subject and will read about the history or watch a video of unbiased mock trials. However I see no need for it becoming emotional. A good natured debate is much better informative and enjoyable.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by BenG

I saw a TV program about finding Richard's burial place and the excavation. They had a Richard III Society representative on hand when the forensic expert confirmed that Richard did indeed have a crooked spine. The Society member started crying at the news as if her world was turned upside down.

This was Philippa Langley who is I think from the Scottish branch of the Richard III society. It was she who headed the campaign, after a lot of investigation which led various experts to work out that that car park was indeed over the site of the Greyfriars place where Richard had been buried. The Society did a lot of fundraising to cover the costs of the investigation, so she was understandably pretty emotional when they thought that they probably had found Richard's remains.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Victoria

It’s a great choice for moot court. No one knows what actually happened to the boys and the Richard seems to inspire passion both ways.

I’ve just peeked at Catlady’s neat website. The trail takes place in England. The actual Duke of Gloucester gives the introduction. It looks like fun.

Thank you Victoria , That does sound interesting. I'll check it out tonight, when I get home.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

This was Philippa Langley who is I think from the Scottish branch of the Richard III society. It was she who headed the campaign, after a lot of investigation which led various experts to work out that that car park was indeed over the site of the Greyfriars place where Richard had been buried. The Society did a lot of fundraising to cover the costs of the investigation, so she was understandably pretty emotional when they thought that they probably had found Richard's remains.

Ah that makes more sense then. Thanks for the explanation Bookpossum.

[Catlady]

Richard's guilty. Motive, means, opportunity.

If he didn't kill the princes, who did?

Is there any real doubt that he stole the throne from his nephew? If he did that, then all else follows--as long as they lived, they were a danger to him. Why else did he lock them up in the Tower? Who else had the slightest motive to kill them? Or had access to them?

I don't care how many faux trials return a not-guilty verdict. He did it.

[CRussel]

Ah, Catlady, I'm strongly of the opinion that Henry VII did it. Or caused it to be done. He had far more cause, was a far nastier man, and I find the evidence against Richard III not at all compelling.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Ah, Catlady, I'm strongly of the opinion that Henry VII did it. Or caused it to be done. He had far more cause, was a far nastier man, and I find the evidence against Richard III not at all compelling.

And Richard stole the crown and locked up the princes because he was such a sweetheart of a guy? Then he left the princes in the Tower for Henry to murder?

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Richard's guilty. Motive, means, opportunity.

If he didn't kill the princes, who did?

Is there any real doubt that he stole the throne from his nephew? If he did that, then all else follows--as long as they lived, they were a danger to him. Why else did he lock them up in the Tower? Who else had the slightest motive to kill them? Or had access to them?

I don't care how many faux trials return a not-guilty verdict. He did it.

Clearly Josephine Tey failed to convince you. Yes, there is more than doubt that he "stole" the throne, and there is the document Titulus Regius to prove it.

"Locked up in the tower" - yes, the Tower was used as a prison, but it was also a royal residence. After all, castles have dungeons, don't they, but not everyone living in a castle was imprisoned there by any means. The princes were, at least for a time, living in the royal residence in the Tower.

However, if you aren't convinced Catlady, nothing I can say will change your mind, and that's okay. Of course I don't know, any more than anyone else, whether he did it or not, but I find the whole thing a fascinating historical exercise. History isn't black or white - it is dappled.

[gmw]

One of the big mysteries, which if solved may reveal the guilty party, is the resounding silence surrounding the boys' disappearance. According to Wikipedia: "Only one contemporary narrative account of the boys' time in the tower exists: that of Dominic Mancini. Mancini's account was not discovered until 1934, in the Municipal Library in Lille."

I find it very strange that there has not been something more. Without it, we don't even know exactly when the boys disappeared, which makes it rather difficult to do much finger pointing.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by gmw

One of the big mysteries, which if solved may reveal the guilty party, is the resounding silence surrounding the boys' disappearance. According to Wikipedia: "Only one contemporary narrative account of the boys' time in the tower exists: that of Dominic Mancini. Mancini's account was not discovered until 1934, in the Municipal Library in Lille."

I find it very strange that there has not been something more. Without it, we don't even know exactly when the boys disappeared, which makes it rather difficult to do much finger pointing.

That's true, I think that's also why in mock trials the verdict usually supports Richard. They don't have enough evidence to pin Richard with the murders. It was always on my mind how difficult it must have been for the people of the Kingdom. They can't say they suspect a sitting King of the murders. If it was King Richard III or KIng Henry Vll. What ever they thought they couldn't say it.