Rating: 
Summary: Boring!
Review: This book is the most boring book that I ever read. I mean, all we see is this guy who has a broken leg, and who's trying to solve a mystery that occurs decades ago. What's the point?
Rating: 
Summary: A perennial favorite, and it's easy to see why
Review: I, too, love this book. It's a wonderful introduction to the intricacies of English royalty of the period, and prompted me to search out Thomas B. Costain's wonderful series that begins with "The Conquering Family."Tey's book is fun to read and re-read, and I look forward to the passing of a few more years when I can pick it up again.
Rating:
Summary: Some reviwers need to pay more attention
Review: I enjoyed this novel very much and feel that the English lady from New York and the person who argues for Richard's guilt are missing the point of the novel. Tey's argument is that not only are sources like More not very reliable, but all the evidence argues that Richard simply did not fit the profile of the murderer. In answer to the English Woman, I think that she, not Tey is being naive in assuming that since competition for the throne was fierce, all the victors must be ruthless. History clearly records that King Stephen, only a few centuries earlier released his cousin Maude from any form of imprisonment even though she was a crown rival with a better claim to the throne and one that had rebelled against him. King John also, supposedly one of the most ruthless kings in history, confined, not murdered his throne rival, Eleanor of Brittany. The reader who claimed that the evidence points to Richard as the murderer has failed to understand Tey's point that the murder, done in such a fashion, would not have been illogical, but irrational for the cold blooded monster painted in history books. By having the princes disappear, instead of poisoning them and claiming a fever or keeping them until they were in their twenties and then executing them, Richard would have gained the worst of both worlds. He would have been suspected as a murderer, yet would still not have been cleared as sole claimant to the throne. Also, if he was so determined to claim the throne, he would have also murdered Edward of Warwick, his nephew, who had an equally good claim to the throne.
Rating: 
Summary: Wonderful and concise
Review: This remarkable book deserves credit for not only being an intriguing story, but also a novel that is able to make the intricacies of history and medieval politics accessible to the reader. Instead of focusing on long and boring lists of sources, Tey goes into the whys of the mystery as well as the whats. Tey clearly challenges the long (and unfairly) established perception of Richard the III by asking one question: Why? Why would Richard have committed the crime? Why is he painted as villainous and grasping when all the evidence shows otherwise? Why did Tudor, who villified Richard mercilessly, never actually accuse Richard of the murder? Tey argues these points and backs them up superbly with evidence rather than hearsay from Tudor historians. She fully explores the motivations of the historians as well as Richard's supposed motives. Tey asks the questions which historians always ignore, such as Why the supposedly ruthless Richard would act with such restraint against proven enemies? These questions are every bit as valid as the traditional arguments, perhaps even more so, because they go into the very heart and nature of the deeds and the people involved Incidentally, the title comes from the saying: "Truth is the daughter of time."
Rating:
Summary: An Pleasant Surprise
Review: I started reading this book because I had to for my AP Euro History Class. I was pleasantly surprised by this book. I because acutly interested in Grant's seach to find the killer of the Princes in the Tower. I am not usually a mystery reader, but this isn't a usual mystery.
Rating: 
Summary: The book is enjoyable, but overrated.
Review: I read the book recently for the second time for my mystery discussion group and was hoping to find it better the second time around but it was not. The characters were enjoyable but the story was not as earth shattering as the book's reputation leads you to believe. I will be trying another book by this author because I did enjoy her style. Can someone tell me why its called "The Daughter of Time"?
Rating:
Summary: It's Josephine Tey, all right, but not her best...
Review: All the ingredients for complete satisfaction with this book seemed to be in place: I love Josephine Tey (anyone that hasn't read The Singing Sands is missing out on the most beautifully written, thoughtful and perceptive mystery ever, I think); I'm very familiar with the names and dates of sixteenth- and fifteenth-century England, my country, and yet, I found myself losing interest in this book. Here, the characters, particularly the character of Inspector Grant, really take a back seat to the story of Richard III... and it turns out to be less a story than a polemic. This is a good old-fashioned political pamphlet, five hundred years out of date perhaps, but no less impassioned for that -- asking us, imploring us, to redeem the reputation of an 'evil' king. And why? Well, 'king' is a very powerful word in the English language (indeed, in any language), and it is especially exalted in England. The king has a spiritual demension -- he is anointed, after all, he is set apart from other men -- and for a king to be a base murderer of innocents is a grave, unforgivable betrayal of the generosity, loyalty, and even love that the people give to their king. Conversely, to wrong a king by misreading him, by being fooled by his usurper's self-serving propaganda: This is also a sort of crime. Josephine Tey's devotion to her country, and to the kingship that is so much a part of it, is understandable and even, in this who-cares, debunking post-modern world, even laudable; yet it gets in the way of a good read. After one has read her scornful reference to 'the sainted Thomas More' once or twice, one feels like saying, 'All right, Josephine, we get the point: You don't think Thomas deserves the praise'; but it goes on and on. At one point Inspector Grant says to himself (I'm paraphrasing): 'Get a hold on yourself. You're becoming partisan.' Only becoming partisan? Who is she/he kidding? He was partisan from the beginning. So I'm afraid the book didn't grip me, because I learned very early on where! she stood on this issue of Richard's guilt or virtue, and I'm afraid I don't agree. My feeling is, by the way, that Tey's views are not politically well-informed and thus naive: it was dog-eat-dog in those times: if you were a king you had clear the field of possible pretenders (that's rival claimants to the throne, for you Americans), and if you were a claimant you lived in constant fear for your life. No one could afford to be lily-white.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating study of a historical mystery
Review: As a novel, this book is rather lame: although the characters are delightful and the historical mystery it addresses is intriguing, the plot (such as it is) is pretty perfunctory. On the other hand, Tey's approach -- addressing the question of Richard III's guilt from the detective's perspective -- is refreshing, and some of the points she makes (e.g., the use of rumor and disinformation by Richard's opposition) have never been disproved. Subsequent research seems to show that the Princes were indeed murdered during Richard III's reign, although whether he was personally responsible for ordering their deaths is, to my mind, still an open question. But it's equally clear that the Tudor picture of him as a deformed monster (perpetuated by Shakespeare) was a gross exaggeration. And, as Tey points out, his successor Henry VII methodically committed even more heinous atrocities in his effort to secure the throne for his heirs.
Although it's possible to pick holes in some of Tey's arguments, she does make important points: (1) Just because something is in the history books doesn't mean it happened that way -- or even happened at all; (2) People behave like people, not like characters in a morality play; and (3) If a historian depicts people in terms of Good Guys and Bad Guys, the obvious conclusion is "ulterior motive"! In this era when so much of what passes for "news" is propaganda, I think the book is still very much worth reading. (I first read it over 30 years ago, and still find myself muttering "Tonypandy!" on occasion ... )
Rating: 
Summary: ATTENTION HISTORY LOVERS
Review: For all of you that like English History with a twist of mystery than you will love the novella, THE DAUGHTER OF TIME by Josephine Tey. This is a mystery novel that deals a lot with English History and Old Kings and stuff, whic is something that I just don't mesh with. On a scale of one to ten I would have to rate this book a three. The reading was a bit hard, and I often found myself counting the pages until I was finished. Though I usually love mystery, this one was definitely a disappointment on countless levels. The book was written well and I think that if I had been a tad bit older and wiser on English History that I may have enjoyed it more. Overall I think that I would personally have to give the book two thumbs down.
Rating:
Summary: One of the all-time greats
Review: It's wonderful to see that this excellent novel continues to endure. I read it over 30 years ago and it remains one of my favorites. It's a tightly written and compelling page turner. However, it is fiction, and in-depth analysis of the history of the Princes in the Tower does make Richard III seem to be the culprit.
|
