This image is a candidate for speedy deletion. It will be deleted after seven days from the date of nomination.The Daughter of Time is a 1951 novel by Josephine Tey, often referenced by “supporters” of King Richard III of England, despite the fact that it never claims to be other than fiction. It was the last book Tey published, shortly before her death.

Contents1 Plot summary

2 Literary significance and criticism

3 LAST PART

Plot summary

Tey’s regular hero, Scotland Yard Inspector Alan Grant, is forced to spend time laid up in hospital. Becoming interested in a postcard of a portrait that his friend Marta brings to him, he asks for history books; because of the lack of imagination shown in modern mystery fiction, he has friends research reference books so he can puzzle out the mystery of whether King Richard III of England murdered his nephews, the Princes in the Tower.

The “research” carried out by Grant is based on historic fact. The conclusion that Richard III is not guilty, however, is based to some extent on Grant’s “gut feeling” having looked at the portrait, as a detective, that Richard is a good man and therefore not capable of such a crime. Grant also reasons that due to the Titulus Regius, Richard III gained little by killing his nephews, who were his older brother Edward IV’s sons. This document, which declared the two boys illegitimate, negated their claim to the throne. Richard’s other brother, George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence, had been executed for treason, negating his children’s claim to the throne. Thus Tey through Grant reasons that, assuming Richard was supported by the people, there was no one else in line to the throne before him and, therefore, no reasons for him to murder his “illegitimate” nephews.

As a more likely culprit Henry VII is presented because during his reign he repealed the Titulus Regius and destroyed it without it being read, legitimizing the nephews again. He did so because he married Elizabeth, elder sister of the princes, to cement his otherwise threadbare claim to the throne–doing so, however, placed the princes as legitimate King and heir to the English throne. Assuming they were alive at this time, these two boys would then have represented a terrible peril to the Tudor claim, and threatened Henry’s reign to a vastly greater extent than they did Richard’s.

Another central plank of Tey/Grant’s argument is the lack of any contemporary accusation against Richard. At the time of her writing, however, accounts by writers such as Dominic Mancini were already being uncovered which made it clear that English public opinion had indeed grown concerned about the princes’ fate at the hands of their uncle. It cannot be denied, however, that Henry Tudor made no accusation of child-murder against their uncle, when such an accusation, if it could possibly be made, would have been a prime plank in Henry’s case.

Furthermore, Tey points out that virtually all other possible Yorkist claimants to the throne were alive, free, and living on pensions from Richard at the time of Richard’s death at Bosworth, making the murder of the princes incongruous. Each of them was, however, executed by Henry VII. Similarly, the mother of the princes lived at court on Richard’s pension, but was forced to live in a convent eighteen months after Henry’s accession.

Literary significance and criticism

“Without leaving his bed, Grant investigates the evidence and arrives at a convincing solution by means of acute historical detection, in a tale which Anthony Boucher called “one of the permanent classics in the detective field,” and which Dorothy B. Hughes has termed “not only one of the most important mysteries of the year, but of all years of mystery

LAST PART

Tonypandy: Tonypandy- When a small event happens, to the public, and soon rumors get out about how it was actually way worse, people died, whatever to make it sound worse than what had actually happened.

In 1910, Miners rioted about their pay rights, and soon Churchill deployed large amounts of police forces in the area. And rumors soon circled that Soldiers were sent there and soon fired on the workers killing many of them, but this was untrue.

Tonypandy in today’s world can be described by weapons of mass destruction especially in North Korea. North Korea built on bomb, just because every other country was trying to do the same, they claimed if you have nuclear bombs then you become even more powerful with other country’s. But Bush said Weapon’s of mass destruction, just like as if North Korea was mass producing to try to take over the world. The point is they wanted to only build one, but it was said there were trying to make many for global domination.

Your Opinion: I think one or two of Henry VII men killed the boys, only because it would benefit Henry ten times more, and killing the boys mean nothing to Richard because he would also have to kill his other brothers and sisters offspring’s, to have straight entitlement to the thrown. Grant said on page 163,”But by making the children legitimate, he automatically made the two boys heir to the throne before her. In, fact by repealing Titulus Regius he made the elder of the two boys King of England. But the boys were already dead so Elizabeth was next in line, and guess who married her, Henry the VII. This quote proves the only person those deaths profited was Henry the VII. I have no bias.

Refrences to History: 1. “Honestly I think historians are all mad.” (Page 150)- Grant writes this because he thinks historians write what they think happened, not what is true, and because it goes person to person it all intertwines and what happens becomes not as clear.

2. “History is the Bunk.” (Page 149) – History isn’t always something you can turn to, because its not always written write after it is done, people tell people what to write and soon it is way off of what people say today. Just like grant said there’s plenty of history mess ups out there, you just have to find them.

4. “Do you think Historian really listen to what they are saying?”(Page 150)- Because after all the different accounts and books he read do you see how many different stories there were, you think at least to people that were there would atleast, be there, write about it then keep, and never tell anyone a different story, then everything might be true.

3. “Historians should be compelled to take a course of psychology before they are allowed to write.” (Page 201)- This mean that the historians should take a course that would help them understand what the people would be thinking to influence them on making a decision. This would help the historians understand why they people would be doing such actions