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

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wearever

I thought Grants defence strategy was a pretty good one.

1) Discredit the most credible witness. He was relentless with his attacks on Thomas Moore. Character assassination.

2) He brings up the pre marriage contract between King Edward and Eleanor Butler. Thus claiming his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville and her children have no right to the throne.

3) King Richard would then have no reason to kill the princes, they have no claim. So why would he kill them ?

I think in a court of law this would have caused enough doubt for an acquittal.

No way! Only if the court was in a tv drama. You could drive a truck through the holes in Grant’s arguments. It’s true Grant used them cleverly. But real courts have rules about what constitutes acceptable evidence. At least in Canada

For example, there has to be consistency in the evidence you are presenting / story you are telling. As you note, Grant attacks the motive against Richard. He says that Richard would not benefit from the killing the Princes, because they were illegitimate, and therefore not eligible for the throne.

However, he then abandons that reasoning, and reinstates the motive. He tells Carradine that the Princes were “the vital ones” for Henry to eliminate, because they stood between Henry and the throne. And maybe because I may have ocd, I have pages of notes with similar contradictions by Grant.

Edited to add an example

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by gmw

The House of York itself came to the throne via slightly doubtful lines. The Woodville house was prolific and swept into powerful positions when Elizabeth married Edward IV, gaining widespread influence. So while the marriage claim was cast into doubt, these powerful people remained and both they and their new husbands, wives and extended families would not be happy about the idea that they have suddenly lost their blood links to the throne.

Put all that together and I think it becomes clear that the boys, while they remained alive, remained a threat. This is demonstrated quite clearly by the case or Perkin Warbeck. Further evidence that only doubtful blood links are necessary to gain support for the throne also comes along in the form of Henry VII.

So if Richard was serious about keeping the throne, it is best that the boys should be gone. Best too, that they disappear while their legitimacy is in question. And simply disappearing means there are delays before the knowledge is widespread, and even then there is little of anything tangible for people to rally against. Or so goes my guesswork.


Edited to Add: It's worth noticing that the above can be true whether Richard is a villain seizing the throne from the rightful princes, or whether he is a dutiful man merely protecting the throne from illegitimate offspring.

Absolutely, and yet Parliament let King Richard lll get away with it. They were declared illegitimate and no claim to the throne. I'm not saying it's right only that it happened. Why ? Richard had powerful friends who wanted the Woodvilles out. Only they didn't know how far Richard would go. Richard got to be King and no one stopped him.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Absolutely, and yet Parliament let King Richard lll get away with it. They were declared illegitimate and no claim to the throne. I'm not saying it's right only that it happened. Why ? Richard had powerful friends who wanted the Woodvilles out. Only they didn't know how far Richard would go. Richard got to be King and no one stopped him.

Yes, Parliament did let Richard get away with it. Just as they off Edward, and Henry, etc. I thought the truest words were spoken by the Croyland Monk, who said “What security are our kings....”

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is Grant a defense lawyer or a detective? Sure, a clever lawyer can make a case, and win it with the right jury--the defense lawyer's job isn't to find the truth, it's to defend the client. But Grant's supposed to be a detective looking for truth, and instead he too often is selective in what he decides to believe about a man whose face he likes.

I'm reading Weir now, and occasionally going back to Tey to see how some things match up. Tey glosses over the sudden execution of Hastings:



I'm not sure why the specific timing ("rushed") is so important to Grant and Carradine, but Weir says:



As to the matter of the forfeited estates being restored, Weir says:



Weir's take makes perfect sense to me.

Per why the princes needed to be killed when they were already delegitimized, Weir talks about the Sanctuary plot:




Tey, as far as I can recall, made no mention of this plot and how it might have affected Richard's plans for the princes.

That's as far as I've gotten in Weir (a little over halfway); I am finding it much more compelling and interesting than Tey.

That's why I and Bookworm_girl have recommended Alison Weir as a Prosecution and Tey as the defence of King Richard. They compliment each other perfectly.

Hastings was rushed to execution. One week is considered a short time. So Hastings was executed hastily. Usually they spend time in prison awaiting execution this was not done. It could be months or years. One week was unusual. Richard didn't want him tell anyone about the Princes fate. Whatever that might be.

[Bookpossum]

Originally Posted by Victoria

No way! Only if the court was in a tv drama. You could drive a truck through the holes in Grant’s arguments. It’s true Grant used them cleverly. But real courts have rules about what constitutes acceptable evidence. At least in Canada

For example, there has to be consistency in the evidence you are presenting / story you are telling. As you note, Grant attacks the motive against Richard. He says that Richard would not benefit from the killing the Princes, because they were illegitimate, and therefore not eligible for the throne.

However, he then abandons that reasoning, and reinstates the motive. He tells Carradine that the Princes were “the vital ones” for Henry to eliminate, because they stood between Henry and the throne. And maybe because I may have ocd, I have pages of notes with similar contradictions by Grant.
Edited to add an example

Apparently there was a trial some years ago, and Richard was found Not Guilty. Of course it could have been run by a group of ardent supporters - I can’t remember where I read about it and haven’t tried a search.

The princes were the vital ones for Henry because he destroyed Titulus Regius, which declared all the children of Edward IV illegitimate, in order to shore up his shaky claim to the throne. This shoring up was marrying Elizabeth, the boys’ sister. He wanted her to be legitimate, but if the boys were alive, their claim to the throne was before hers as they of course were made legitimate also by the removal of Titulus Regius - which means the right to rule.

[Wearever]

Originally Posted by Victoria

No way! Only if the court was in a tv drama. You could drive a truck through the holes in Grant’s arguments. It’s true Grant used them cleverly. But real courts have rules about what constitutes acceptable evidence. At least in Canada

For example, there has to be consistency in the evidence you are presenting / story you are telling. As you note, Grant attacks the motive against Richard. He says that Richard would not benefit from the killing the Princes, because they were illegitimate, and therefore not eligible for the throne.

However, he then abandons that reasoning, and reinstates the motive. He tells Carradine that the Princes were “the vital ones” for Henry to eliminate, because they stood between Henry and the throne. And maybe because I may have ocd, I have pages of notes with similar contradictions by Grant.

Edited to add an example

Lol, In the States we had a couple of high profile trials. That tossed evidence out the window. OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They won.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Apparently there was a trial some years ago, and Richard was found Not Guilty. Of course it could have been run by a group of ardent supporters - I can’t remember where I read about it and haven’t tried a search.

The princes were the vital ones for Henry because he destroyed Titulus Regius, which declared all the children of Edward IV illegitimate, in order to shore up his shaky claim to the throne. This shoring up was marrying Elizabeth, the boys’ sister. He wanted her to be legitimate, but if the boys were alive, their claim to the throne was before hers as they of course were made legitimate also by the removal of Titulus Regius - which means the right to rule.

True, that was Grant’s reasoning. I guess I can’t accept Grant’s argument in the first place, which is that Richard did not benefit from their deaths, because of the Titulus Regius. I know very little about English history, but it isn’t consistent with what I did read.

The various branches of the Plantagenet family had been jockeying for the throne and eliminating the competition for decades. As long as the boys were alive, they could be championed by supporters of Edward IV, or the remaining the Lancasters, or the Woodville hopefuls, as a pretence to rise against Richard.

I realize the same argument applied to Henry. If you live in times and in places where ‘might is right’, elimination of the competition is often seen as the best way to hang on to power.

I don’t think there is irrefutable proof Richard was responsible for the boys’ disappearance. Just that Grant’s declaration that Richard could not benefit from the boys’ murder is spurious. As Catlady and gmw have also noted, he’s a trained investigator who tracks down potential motives for a living and Richard’s motives are right there in plain sight.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Lol, In the States we had a couple of high profile trials. That tossed evidence out the window. OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They won.

We have our examples too - hence my . We have one going on right now, but I probably shouldn’t say any more.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Victoria

[...] And maybe because I may have ocd, I have pages of notes with similar contradictions by Grant. [...]

Welcome to the [book] club

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Wearever

Absolutely, and yet Parliament let King Richard lll get away with it. They were declared illegitimate and no claim to the throne. I'm not saying it's right only that it happened. Why ? Richard had powerful friends who wanted the Woodvilles out. Only they didn't know how far Richard would go. Richard got to be King and no one stopped him.

Originally Posted by Victoria

True, that was Grant’s reasoning. I guess I can’t accept Grant’s argument in the first place, which is that Richard did not benefit from their deaths, because of the Titulus Regius. I know very little about English history, but it isn’t consistent with what I did read.

The various branches of the Plantagenet family had been jockeying for the throne and eliminating the competition for decades. As long as the boys were alive, they could be championed by supporters of Edward IV, or the remaining the Lancasters, or the Woodville hopefuls, as a pretence to rise against Richard.

I realize the same argument applied to Henry. If you live in times and in places where ‘might is right’, elimination of the competition is often seen as the best way to hang on to power.

I think this point is important when considering history. We have to put ourselves into the mindset of the people at the time and can't apply our modern sensibilities. I believe that holding the throne was a constant struggle for control from threats. I suspect that many people acted from fear and self-preservation for themselves and their families. Therefore we don't know that actions were necessarily consistent with belief. Justice could be swift and the punishment death and all without a fair legal trial.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

Apparently there was a trial some years ago, and Richard was found Not Guilty. Of course it could have been run by a group of ardent supporters - I can’t remember where I read about it and haven’t tried a search.

I tried a search. I found many instances of trials led by the Richard III Society to Shakespeare Societies to law firms! Not surprising given the hundreds of years that this mystery has remained intriguing to people. I am curious how often the verdict comes back guilty versus not guilty and whether it is influenced by any biases of the group staging the trial. It reminds me of our discussion about the musical with audience-voted endings for Drood.

[Bookpossum]

There was a mock trial of Jasper around 1900, with G K Chesterton (I think) as the judge. It sounds quite hilarious.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Originally Posted by Bookpossum

There was a mock trial of Jasper around 1900, with G K Chesterton (I think) as the judge. It sounds quite hilarious.

There were a lot of famous names in that one. It does sound hilarious.

[Catlady]

Weir mentions a trial in 1984 on "Channel 4 Television" that resulted in a not guilty verdict.

I just tried to Google it and came up with a five-part video of what is apparently that 1984 telecast.

The fight against injustice was a prominent theme in Josephine Tey's works, none more so than in The Daughter of Time in which Inspector Grant, laid up in hospital with an injured spine, investigates the mystery of the disappearance of the princes in the tower, supposedly murdered by their wicked Uncle, King Richard III, the monstrous crouchback of Tudor myth and Shakespearean literature.

It is a remarkable novel, ranked Number 1 Best Crime Novel of all Time by the British based Crime Writers' Association and Number 4 by the Mystery Writers of America. It is probable that The Richard III Society would not have been formed without the influence of The Daughter of Time, and much scholarly debate has been done since in an effort to present a more balanced account of the life and times of the last of the Plantaganet kings.

Introduced by His Royal Highness, Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester a modern trial by jury was presented at the Old Bailey on the afternoon and evening of 21st February, 1984, almost 500 years after the death of the last of the Plantagenet Kings, King Richard III, on Bosworth Field, the last of the English monarchs to die in battle. It was introduced as follows:

"The charge is that King Richard III did, in or about the month of august, 1483, in the Tower of London, murder Prince Edward, Prince of Wales, and Prince Richard, Duke of York.

King Richard III stands indicted at the bar of history. In this unique work the members of the jury have been invited to deliver their verdict on a matter whch has been the subject of fierce controversy and dispute for over 500 years: whether or not King Richard III was responsible for the alleged murder of the two young princes. He himself was killed on the battlefield of Bosworth in 1485 and so is beyond the power and jurisdiction of this or any other human court. The task of the jury is, therefore, to pass historical judgement upon him. Their verdict will stimulate rather than terminate the controversy that has surrounded the deaths of the princes.

Presiding over the case is Lord Elwyn-Jones, the former Lord Chancellor, and he is ably supported by two of Britain's leading criminal Queen's Counsels.

A fascinating trial which presents evidence which offers the viewer the opportunity to join the jury in weighing the evidence and reaching his or her own verdict before discovering that of the television jury."

[gmw]

I noticed that telecast description gives credit for the Richard III society to the book, Wikipedia however says:

The Richard III Society was founded in 1924 by Liverpool surgeon S. Saxon Barton as The Fellowship of the White Boar, Richard's badge and a symbol of the Yorkist army in the Wars of the Roses. Its membership was originally a small group of interested amateur historians whose aim was to bring about a re-assessment of the reputation of Richard III.

The society became moribund during the Second World War. In 1951 Josephine Tey published her detective novel The Daughter of Time, in which Richard's guilt is examined and doubted. In 1955, Laurence Olivier released his film of Shakespeare's Richard III, which at the beginning admitted that the play was based on legend, and a sympathetic, detailed biography of Richard was published by Paul Murray Kendall, all of which went some way towards re-invigorating the society.