In 1951, English novelist Josephine Tey (+1952) wrote a short novel called The Daughter of Time, an odd title, apparently based on an obscure proverb she quotes at the beginning of the novel: “Truth is the daughter of time.”
The NY Times called this novel “the best mystery story of the twentieth century.” Now, that’s pretty high praise, but I have to say that it’s a good thing the novel is short; I couldn’t put it down until I finished it. Here’s the gist: Detective Carradine is laid up in a London hospital bed with a broken leg, and he’s bored to death. I can’t recall the plot detail that introduced his “investigation,” which, to relieve the tedium, he pursued like a bloodhound with the aid of a friend who brought him source material over the duration of the investigation, one source requiring another until the “mystery” of Richard III was solved.. It’s a fictionalized framework to present non-fictional historical research.
Richard III has been regarded as a classical monster, primarily because that’s how he’s portrayed by our beloved Shakespeare—whose source was St. Thomas More, but, as it turns out, St. Thomas More’s source was a Tudor lie which the innocent and credulous saint believed—and which the less credulous fictional detective, Carradine, proves to be false from his hospital bed. The perpetuation of that lie was the serious business of the Tudor family. The novel is fiction; its sources are not. It’s a fascinating example of the theory (to which I myself subscribe) that the natural home of truth is in myth—or “fiction.”
I never heard of the Society of Richard III, until the other day when the poor king’s body was found in Leicester, but I’d bet they’ve heard of Josephine Tey and her novel. Its sources, if verified, make Richard III the most falsely maligned figure in English history. It also re-writes that history in ways that defy imagination. It wouldn’t be surprising; no one is better than the English at revising their history to suit their political ends.
Richard III was the last of the Plantagenet kings. At least as interesting (to me) was the news that his only living descendant (not sure I got this last bit right), proved by DNA testing, is a Canadian carpenter. So—there’s a man going around Canada nailing boards together who’s the true king of England.
Correction: the detective’s name was Grant, not Carradine.
Thanks for sharing that Dena, I think I’m going to have check that book out (still in print, and Amazon has a nice looking edition of it to boot). If I asked you if I should read it, I’m guessing you’d say yes, correct?
“that the natural home of truth is in myth”
I concur. I came to believe this even before my conversion….thank you Tolkien!
“Its sources, if verified, make Richard III the most falsely maligned figure in English history.”
Regardless of her sources, that may still be true. There was never good evidence to indict Richard for the murder of his nephews, then or now.
“It also re-writes that history in ways that defy imagination.”
Care to elaborate on that a bit?
“It wouldn’t be surprising; no one is better than the English at revising their history to suit their political ends.”
Sadly, this is true. This is also true of it’s colonies, including America. Everything from the revolution to the civil war and beyond.
On that point I’d really suggest reading “Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama” by Christopher A. Ferrara. I’d recommend the book to everybody here, from the STAR staff, to it’s contributors, to it’s readers. It was an eye opening read, and something that held me for the entire 700 pages (it’s a long book). It’s something the author meant for anyone, but especially aimed at people like us.
http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-God-That-Failed-Constructing/dp/1621380068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360448553&sr=8-1&keywords=liberty+the+god+that+failed
“Richard III was the last of the Plantagenet kings”
And quite a line of Kings that, one of the greatest houses of Medieval Christendom.
“who’s the true king of England.”
That is an interesting idea, most people arguing for the true king of England would have fingered James II’s line, not Richard’s. HRH, has two other claiments to the throne, it seems!
But which would you prefer Dena, if somehow you had the deciding factor: the line of Richard III, last of the Plantagenet kings, or the line of James II, last of the Stuart kings? I’m not sure how well versed you are in royal dynasties, but it would still be interesting to see who you favored. Honestly, I prefer either over the current line, no offense to HRH, but their lines were legitimate, and besides, while I admire her, alot of her (living) family just seem like…screwballs, unworthy to sit on the throne. I think Pearce once referred to the current royals as akin to the stewards who ruled over Gondor, awaiting the return of the true king. That is kind of how I see it too.
Dear R.C.,
Yes I do recommend Tey’s novel. It’s a great read even if you’re not a history buff, just a mystery fan like me.
As for how England’s history would be different had Richard lived and reigned, as I said, my imagination is defied. During his short reign, he had already instituted some of the most humane and truly progressive laws in English history. And, since there would have been no Henry VIII nor an Elizabeth, there would have been no Deformation–and that’s only for starters.
I haven’t read Ferrara’s book, but judging from its title, I’m already in accord with its thesis. And I agree: The analogy of Gondor stewards is appropriate for the current family–some, like Elizabeth II, are better stewards than others, but stewards, nonetheless.
I understand, by the way, that Richard’s body shows he was killed by a stab in the buttocks. I believe the English have a word for that. In America, we don’t believe in shooting (or stabbing) from the back. We have a word for it, too: cowardice.
According to the postmortem of Richard’s remains, there were two fatal wounds: one sliced off a piece of his skull; the other was a crushing blow that went so deep (four inches) that it put a hole in the base of the skull. The larger wound may have killed him instantly, but if not, he would have fallen unconscious and quickly died. The sword thrust through the buttocks, a humiliation wound, would have been executed after he died and was stripped. So brutal… and they say he was the monster.