It took me a bit to get into this book—not because it is a
bad book but because too much was going on in life to focus on reading. Once I was able to get into the book, I
enjoyed it. I had to check out a few of
the questions raised to see if it was all fiction or if there was a hint of
truth in the book. That made me like the
book more.
People deal with illness in a variety of ways and I can
think of little worse than confinement to a small room where all you can do is
look at the ceiling. Toss in the lack of
what Grant considered quality literature to read and I would probably jump at
the idea of investigating Richard III myself!
I readily admit that my impression of Richard III is more of the
Shakespearean style than anything else.
I never thought much about him otherwise. However when checking some of the “facts”
uncovered in the novel I too believe he warrants a second look by
historians. Maybe the unearthing of his
possible remains will give him that. Sir
Thomas More was indeed a child when Richard lived (seven years old) so his history is not exactly a firsthand account.
John Morton was the Archbishop of Canterbury who restored the wealth of the
country under Henry VII and it is probable that the account attributed to More
was his. While the War of the Roses may
have ended, old hatreds are difficult to put aside.
The police style investigation made the book interesting and
more believable than just an historical essay would. The fate of the princes in the Tower is
unknown. They disappeared but where, how
and possibly even when is subject to speculation. While touring the Tower the Beefeater talked
about them and even said they were never found.
The previous books we read suggested they were secreted out of the
country and fakes placed in their stead.
Since this is a detective mystery, the lack of a body would make it
difficult to charge anyone for the crime.
Also, as Grant and Carradine determined, too many questions went
unanswered. Why had Richard not been
outraged at various acts? Where was the
charge against him in the legal proceedings?
Where was the confession of Tyrrel?
Those and many more were without answer.
One question that did come to mind as I read the book was
why The Daughter of Time for the title?
While he never directly accuses Henry VIII’s mother of the crime, he
does make her the likely suspect.
Thinking back to the other books I think I might agree! The book does make me a bit more skeptical
of all histories until I remember that
part of every history is the story!