Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.79 AVERAGE
3.79 AVERAGE
Such a fun, unexpected little book. I devoured it in an evening and it's one of my favorite novels ever. Detective Alan Grant is in hospital after breaking a leg and in his boredom takes up the case of Richard III and whether or not he actually killed his nephews in the Tower of London. It's more dialogue-heavy than most mysteries (after all, the book is taking place over 500 years after the actual murders occurred) but the dialogue is crisp and moves the action along wonderfully. Highly recommended!
“Truth is the daughter of time” - hence the title. Apparently everyone has known about the propaganda post-Tudor but for some reason everyone believes the princes in the tower were murdered by their uncle. I’ve come across a few interpretations of Richard III (outside Shakespeare) over the years: ‘The Prince of Rags and Patches’ by Terry Deary (of Horrible Histories fame) in a grandfather’s recollection, a textbook illustration in a Tony Robinson British history book, an audio Doctor Who adventure called The Kingmaker, ‘Lent’ by Jo Walton in which he’s a literal devil, and now here.
This is the most convincing. I can see why towards the end of the 20th century this fifties novel was considered one of the best crime novels. It takes place entirely inside a hospital room as a detective from Scotland Yard is bored and decides to investigate (his reason for doing so is not believing a portrait to be the one of a murderer which is utter nonsense, but so are the out of hand rejections when people’s initial beliefs are challenged). Somehow the discussions and examinations of the evidence convey genuine excitement and frustration. Tey does excellent work in bringing the investigation to life - I was about to go to sleep when the next chapter caught my eye and Grant was kept awake, and so was I.
The point is never to believe everything you read. The point is to think critically, examine the evidence, use logic and check your findings. Who gains after all?
This is the most convincing. I can see why towards the end of the 20th century this fifties novel was considered one of the best crime novels. It takes place entirely inside a hospital room as a detective from Scotland Yard is bored and decides to investigate (his reason for doing so is not believing a portrait to be the one of a murderer which is utter nonsense, but so are the out of hand rejections when people’s initial beliefs are challenged). Somehow the discussions and examinations of the evidence convey genuine excitement and frustration. Tey does excellent work in bringing the investigation to life - I was about to go to sleep when the next chapter caught my eye and Grant was kept awake, and so was I.
The point is never to believe everything you read. The point is to think critically, examine the evidence, use logic and check your findings. Who gains after all?
A generous four stars due to an anticlimatic ending, but overall a very good book, especially if you're predisposed to liking 1930's and 40's dialogue styling.
For many years, I have believed that Richard III was innocent of killing the Princes in the Tower. This book did a great job summing up all of the evidence that proved this theory. Tey also did a great job in reminding the viewer that historical sources must be taken with a grain of salt because people can not help but to inject their own personal feelings into a historical event.
Alan Grant is a great character as well, I liked how sassy he was regarding certain historical figures.
Alan Grant is a great character as well, I liked how sassy he was regarding certain historical figures.
I'd been wanting to read this for awhile, as I spotted it as #1 on the Top 100 Crime Novels list. However, I felt like I had to read the first four books in the series, as I really don't like reading books out of order if I can help it.
I'm very glad I did, because all the previous books in the series were worth reading ([b:The Franchise Affair|243401|The Franchise Affair (Inspector Alan Grant, #3)|Josephine Tey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435079717s/243401.jpg|1620751] was probably was my favorite of the bunch). But while I really enjoyed The Daughter of Time, I wouldn't rate it as the best mystery of all time. It's up there, but I'm not even sure it would make my top ten list (though I think it could crack top 20).
I really like the juxtaposition of a modern detective investigating a historical crime, and I really enjoyed how well integrated the two sides were. I found the argument for Richard III quite convincing, and would rather like to read some of the primary source documents myself now.
I think my biggest critique is the odd detachment Tey as author has from some of her characters (especially because it's so sporadic, and she occasionally busts free and does an excellent job of character building). After 5 books, I still don't feel like I know much about Alan Grant at all, which is something I find frustrating.
But still, an excellent book, and one well worth reading.
ETA: I've just re-read this one after having read [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1361649213s/119829.jpg|2046265], and after reading nearly 1000 pages about Richard III, the information in [b:The Daughter of Time|77661|The Daughter of Time (Inspector Alan Grant, #5)|Josephine Tey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1394326949s/77661.jpg|3222080] seems a bit shallow, but even so, it's still a good read, and a concise and charming argument for Richard.
I'm very glad I did, because all the previous books in the series were worth reading ([b:The Franchise Affair|243401|The Franchise Affair (Inspector Alan Grant, #3)|Josephine Tey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435079717s/243401.jpg|1620751] was probably was my favorite of the bunch). But while I really enjoyed The Daughter of Time, I wouldn't rate it as the best mystery of all time. It's up there, but I'm not even sure it would make my top ten list (though I think it could crack top 20).
I really like the juxtaposition of a modern detective investigating a historical crime, and I really enjoyed how well integrated the two sides were. I found the argument for Richard III quite convincing, and would rather like to read some of the primary source documents myself now.
I think my biggest critique is the odd detachment Tey as author has from some of her characters (especially because it's so sporadic, and she occasionally busts free and does an excellent job of character building). After 5 books, I still don't feel like I know much about Alan Grant at all, which is something I find frustrating.
But still, an excellent book, and one well worth reading.
ETA: I've just re-read this one after having read [b:The Sunne in Splendour|119829|The Sunne in Splendour|Sharon Kay Penman|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1361649213s/119829.jpg|2046265], and after reading nearly 1000 pages about Richard III, the information in [b:The Daughter of Time|77661|The Daughter of Time (Inspector Alan Grant, #5)|Josephine Tey|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1394326949s/77661.jpg|3222080] seems a bit shallow, but even so, it's still a good read, and a concise and charming argument for Richard.
emotional
hopeful
informative
mysterious
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
However many times I read this book (this might be the tenth time), I will always love it. The audio version with Derek Jacobi is wonderful.
For years, I avoided getting into British History about all the Richards and Edwards and Henrys and Williams. But the curiosity for a detective novel solving a historical case got the better of me.
Not long but also not an easy read because being an old British book, it uses a language not exactly familiar with a 21st century American audience. That's also what makes it a little quaint and educational.
Almost two thirds through the book I suddenly recalled that I did notice the breaking news some years ago about finding the remains of Richard III. Well, whaddya know! A centuries-old cold case still got new evidence turning up!
Not long but also not an easy read because being an old British book, it uses a language not exactly familiar with a 21st century American audience. That's also what makes it a little quaint and educational.
Almost two thirds through the book I suddenly recalled that I did notice the breaking news some years ago about finding the remains of Richard III. Well, whaddya know! A centuries-old cold case still got new evidence turning up!
An amusing, theoretical stomping on the "official" history of Richard III. While perhaps not authoritative, Tey's novel presents some plausible re-thinking on Richard III's reputation, and on the veracity (or not) of widely-accepted historical fact. Good stuff!
I first read The Daughter of Time long ago in my callow youth. I can't recall much about that first reading experience. I don't think it made much of an impression on me. I was not well-versed in English history and knew little of the Plantagenets, the Wars of the Roses, or the Tudors except what I had gleaned from Shakespeare, so there was very little background for my understanding of what Josephine Tey was doing with this novel.
Since that long ago time, I have read dozens of books about that period of history, especially during the past couple of years when it has been something of an obsession of mine. The result is that I'm now much better equipped to follow Tey's plot and the reasoning of her protagonist Inspector Alan Grant.
When I ran across a reference to her book recently, I was intrigued and decided it was time to read it again. I'm very glad that I did.
The plot of the book is that Inspector Alan Grant has been seriously injured in a fall while chasing a miscreant and is now bedridden in the hospital with a broken leg and injuries to his spine. He must lie flat on his back. He is extremely bored.
In order to divert him, his friends have been bringing him piles of books, but he can't get interested in them. One of his friends, an actress, knowing of his fascination with faces, brings him pictures of several historical figures who have mysteries attached to them. Most of the pictures do not pique his interest, but finally one of them does capture his imagination. It is a copy of the famous portrait of Richard III.
Grant knows little about Richard III except what he remembers from Shakespeare which is, basically, that he killed his two nephews, the "Princes in the Tower," and that he died on Bosworth Field calling for a horse, but, as a student of faces and one whose career depends on being able to read faces, he begins to doubt, while studying the portrait of Richard, that this man was a murderer. He determines to conduct an investigation, four hundred years after the fact, to determine the accuracy of the charges against the man.
His actress friend is delighted to have found something that will occupy Grant's mind and distract him from his predicament. What he needs is someone to do research for him and she happens to know just the person, a young American friend of hers who has an interest in history. Soon he is introduced to Brent Carradine and the two form an alliance and a working partnership in search of the truth.
The two pore over history books and historical accounts of events of the late 15th century, but they soon discover that the most famous accounts of the period - that of Sir Thomas More, for example - were not contemporaneous but were actually written later, during the Tudor period. Since the Tudors were mortal enemies of Richard, can their accounts really be trusted? Grant, the consummate detective, doesn't think so.
At length, the two investigators find that none of the reports that were actually written during the time of Richard's life refer to the death of the two princes and that there is evidence that the mother of the two remained in a friendly relationship with Richard and that her daughters continued to attend events at his court. None of that seems to be the action of a mother or a family who considered Richard to be the murderer of their sons and brothers. Grant and Carradine come to the conclusion that the princes were, in fact, still alive in the Tower throughout Richard's reign.
So, what happened to them? Were they killed, and, if so, who killed them?
Grant decides to follow the clues, as he would in any murder investigation, to try to uncover the culprit. The first question he asks is, who stood to gain from the princes' death?
It wouldn't have been Richard, since after his brother Edward IV's death, Parliament had declared his children with Elizabeth Woodville as illegitimate because there had been an earlier, undissolved marriage with another woman. But there were other children, those of his brother George, who stood ahead of Richard in line to become king, and yet those children continued to live and thrive.
After Richard's death, Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, rescinded all of that and made the Woodville children legitimate again because he wished to marry the oldest of them, the young Elizabeth. In short order, he also sent the children's mother (his mother-in-law) to a convent to live out her days. He also began to systematically rid the government and the aristocracy of the various Woodville relatives who had permeated it during the Yorkist reigns. No mention is made of the princes.
Grant forms the theory that it was Henry who caused the princes to be killed since, by the order of succession, the older one would have been legitimately seen as king and would have provided a rallying point for his enemies. He sent the princes' mother to a convent so that she would be out of the way and have no means of protesting. He then purged other members of the extensive family.
Tey, through Grant, lays out a very plausible case for her theory. She was not the only one who believed Richard innocent. Throughout the more than 450 years since Richard lived and died, there have been loyal groups in Britain who have continued to believe that he had been falsely maligned and to work to rehabilitate his reputation. Tey's book, which was published in 1951, influenced that movement and convinced many to join it. Such has been the far-reaching influence of this unique murder mystery.
This was a work of fiction, of course, and yet it offered a fascinating journey through English history. It also gives us a study of a high-minded obsession, as well, as Grant becomes thoroughly convinced of the falsity of the charge against the accused and he is determined to prove him innocent and bring the guilty to justice. It is, after all, what he does.
Some have noted the obvious relationship between this story and Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window. Since the movie came a few years after the publication of the popular book, it is possible that Hitchcock was influenced by it. Certainly, the obsession of a wheelchair-bound James Stewart with the activities of his neighbors that he is able to view from his window is comparable to the obsession of the bedridden Grant with the idea of balancing the scales of history.
Most likely we will never know with one hundred percent certainty what happened in the Tower of London long ago, but Josephine Tey through Alan Grant at least makes a strong argument for reasonable doubt about the guilt of Richard III and she makes us hungry to read more about that period. Yes, my obsession continues.
Sixty-four years have passed since the publication of this book, which has been voted number one among the top 100 British murder mysteries, and archaeology has added to Richard's story. A few years ago, his remains were found near Bosworth Field where he had been hastily buried after the battle. After excavation and confirmation of his identity, those remains were reburied with full honors and great ceremony. Truth may be the daughter of time, but irony is its son.
Since that long ago time, I have read dozens of books about that period of history, especially during the past couple of years when it has been something of an obsession of mine. The result is that I'm now much better equipped to follow Tey's plot and the reasoning of her protagonist Inspector Alan Grant.
When I ran across a reference to her book recently, I was intrigued and decided it was time to read it again. I'm very glad that I did.
The plot of the book is that Inspector Alan Grant has been seriously injured in a fall while chasing a miscreant and is now bedridden in the hospital with a broken leg and injuries to his spine. He must lie flat on his back. He is extremely bored.
In order to divert him, his friends have been bringing him piles of books, but he can't get interested in them. One of his friends, an actress, knowing of his fascination with faces, brings him pictures of several historical figures who have mysteries attached to them. Most of the pictures do not pique his interest, but finally one of them does capture his imagination. It is a copy of the famous portrait of Richard III.
Grant knows little about Richard III except what he remembers from Shakespeare which is, basically, that he killed his two nephews, the "Princes in the Tower," and that he died on Bosworth Field calling for a horse, but, as a student of faces and one whose career depends on being able to read faces, he begins to doubt, while studying the portrait of Richard, that this man was a murderer. He determines to conduct an investigation, four hundred years after the fact, to determine the accuracy of the charges against the man.
His actress friend is delighted to have found something that will occupy Grant's mind and distract him from his predicament. What he needs is someone to do research for him and she happens to know just the person, a young American friend of hers who has an interest in history. Soon he is introduced to Brent Carradine and the two form an alliance and a working partnership in search of the truth.
The two pore over history books and historical accounts of events of the late 15th century, but they soon discover that the most famous accounts of the period - that of Sir Thomas More, for example - were not contemporaneous but were actually written later, during the Tudor period. Since the Tudors were mortal enemies of Richard, can their accounts really be trusted? Grant, the consummate detective, doesn't think so.
At length, the two investigators find that none of the reports that were actually written during the time of Richard's life refer to the death of the two princes and that there is evidence that the mother of the two remained in a friendly relationship with Richard and that her daughters continued to attend events at his court. None of that seems to be the action of a mother or a family who considered Richard to be the murderer of their sons and brothers. Grant and Carradine come to the conclusion that the princes were, in fact, still alive in the Tower throughout Richard's reign.
So, what happened to them? Were they killed, and, if so, who killed them?
Grant decides to follow the clues, as he would in any murder investigation, to try to uncover the culprit. The first question he asks is, who stood to gain from the princes' death?
It wouldn't have been Richard, since after his brother Edward IV's death, Parliament had declared his children with Elizabeth Woodville as illegitimate because there had been an earlier, undissolved marriage with another woman. But there were other children, those of his brother George, who stood ahead of Richard in line to become king, and yet those children continued to live and thrive.
After Richard's death, Henry VII, the first of the Tudors, rescinded all of that and made the Woodville children legitimate again because he wished to marry the oldest of them, the young Elizabeth. In short order, he also sent the children's mother (his mother-in-law) to a convent to live out her days. He also began to systematically rid the government and the aristocracy of the various Woodville relatives who had permeated it during the Yorkist reigns. No mention is made of the princes.
Grant forms the theory that it was Henry who caused the princes to be killed since, by the order of succession, the older one would have been legitimately seen as king and would have provided a rallying point for his enemies. He sent the princes' mother to a convent so that she would be out of the way and have no means of protesting. He then purged other members of the extensive family.
Tey, through Grant, lays out a very plausible case for her theory. She was not the only one who believed Richard innocent. Throughout the more than 450 years since Richard lived and died, there have been loyal groups in Britain who have continued to believe that he had been falsely maligned and to work to rehabilitate his reputation. Tey's book, which was published in 1951, influenced that movement and convinced many to join it. Such has been the far-reaching influence of this unique murder mystery.
This was a work of fiction, of course, and yet it offered a fascinating journey through English history. It also gives us a study of a high-minded obsession, as well, as Grant becomes thoroughly convinced of the falsity of the charge against the accused and he is determined to prove him innocent and bring the guilty to justice. It is, after all, what he does.
Some have noted the obvious relationship between this story and Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window. Since the movie came a few years after the publication of the popular book, it is possible that Hitchcock was influenced by it. Certainly, the obsession of a wheelchair-bound James Stewart with the activities of his neighbors that he is able to view from his window is comparable to the obsession of the bedridden Grant with the idea of balancing the scales of history.
Most likely we will never know with one hundred percent certainty what happened in the Tower of London long ago, but Josephine Tey through Alan Grant at least makes a strong argument for reasonable doubt about the guilt of Richard III and she makes us hungry to read more about that period. Yes, my obsession continues.
Sixty-four years have passed since the publication of this book, which has been voted number one among the top 100 British murder mysteries, and archaeology has added to Richard's story. A few years ago, his remains were found near Bosworth Field where he had been hastily buried after the battle. After excavation and confirmation of his identity, those remains were reburied with full honors and great ceremony. Truth may be the daughter of time, but irony is its son.
adventurous
informative
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes