Talk:The Daughter of Time

Untitled

The conclusion that Richard III is not guilty, however, is based to some extent on Grant's "gut feeling" , as a detective, that Richard is a good man and therefore not capable of such a crime.

I'm not certain that I agree with this analysis. He was not capable, Grant reasoned, of a base crime. He could have murdered, but he could not have comitted this murder. TRiG 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This statement is only partly correct. "Gut feeling" did play a part in the reasoning, but it is backed up by solid contemporary descriptions of Richard's behaviour, which does allow some inferences about the nature of his character.

In addition, the statement that the novel claims to be nothing more than fiction is incorrect.

Lastly: It should be mentioned that one of the major points of the book lays in pointing out the hypocrisy of condemning Richard for the (alleged) murder of his nephews, while at the same time praising his successor Henry VII for "eliminating his potential rivals" (which apparently is done in several British publications) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.150.79.197 (talk) 19:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the historical evidence cited by Tey's characters accurate? What do professional historians of the period think of Tey's thesis? Xxanthippe 09:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Richard III's legitmacy to the throne, the comment of the Star Chamber is incorrect as the Star Chamber did not exist until Henry VII created it several years after Richard's death. However, Edwward V, one of the young Princes, was supposed to inherit the throne upon coming of age. Richard was merely a temporary King. He may have felt unsatisfied with the lack of Permanence which could explain a motive. As for the other heirs in his way, Nephews and nieces and daughters of the previous king come after the brother of the king in a typical monarchical secession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.188.145 (talk) 04:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I see (presumably because of the proliferation of authors) that both Sir Francis Bacon and Bertold Brecht are credited with the quotation giving rise to the title of the book. Perhaps Brecht quoted Bacon, and Tey quoted Brecht?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatSalopian (talk • contribs) 17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Works with similar themes"

I'd like to remove this section. The works listed don't actually have "similar themes" except in the sense that they deal with Richard III in a fictional manner. None of them professes to be a detective story or to analyse evidence, and there is an obvious overlap with the list to be found at Princes in the Tower#Literature. Any strong feelings? Deb (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Correction - only one of them falls into this category. Deb (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Rose of Raby

I don't see how the novel can be an "erroneous" reference to Paget's book, since Paget's book is a biography, not a novel. It's more likely to be a fictionalised reference to Cecily, or the Rose of Raby, a novel by Agnes Musgrave first published in 1795, and reprinted in the Victorian era. In any case, the passages quoted from the novel are fictional, so I don't see how there can be any "error" as such; it's rather that Tey is creating a novel so she can put into the mouth of Grant comments about how novelists provide better insight into history than historians (she wishes!). "Tanner's Constitutional History of England" is equally fictional, but is obviously based on Henry Hallam's book of the same name. I'm sure the source is valid, but do we really want to include a claim that she made a mistake which obviously wasn't one (there are enough real ones to deal with)? Paul B (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just going on the only reputable source I could find. I couldn't find any source to support the idea that she made it all up. Deb (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

By a weird coincidence, I've just realised that I know "Sally Haggard" personally. Deb (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

She made up the text from the "Rose of Raby" which is quoted in the book. The words don't come from Paget. This is mentioned in The Detective as Historian (a book which is already cited):

"Tey's claims for fiction, and art more generally, begin with her title, which derives from the proverb "Truth is the daughter of time." She develops these claims in her respectful treatment of a fictitious historical novel, The Rose of Raby, from which she 'quotes'." (p.136).

Malone is just copying from what Garber says (in Shakespeare and Modern Culture, p.121), as he acknowledges . Garber lists the books that Grant uses in his research. These include what Garber describes as

"A historical biography: a real book (The Rose of Raby a Life of Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, Richard's mother), attributed to a fictional author Evelyn Payne-Ellis, instead of the book's actual author, Guy Paget".

The problem is that this is just plain wrong, since Tey's Rosy of Raby is clearly identified as a novel, not a "historical biography", and passages of the text are quoted. Malone corrects Garber's error about the literary genre but just repeats the source of it:

"This includes 'fulsome praise' for a novel, The Rose of Raby (a Guy Paget work that MacKintosh incorrectly attributes to the fictional Evelyn Payne-Ellis, as Marjorie Garber notes [121])".

Both Garber and Malone are respectable sources, but neither is any kind of an expert on Tey. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, Musgrave's novel was clearly generally known as "Rose of Raby", since it's apparently the novel mentioned by that name in Crabbe's poem Belinda Waters, part of a list of popular novels of the day:

'Winters at Bath': I would that I had one!
'The Constant Lover,' 'The Discarded Son,
'The Rose of Raby,' Delmore, or The Nun--
These promise something, and may please, perhaps,
Like 'Ethelinda' and the dear 'Relapse.'

So it seems to have been moderately well known.Paul B (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Gosh! Curiouser and curiouser. Someone should write an article about this... Deb (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)