Josephine Tey’s The Daughter of Time is the literary cousin of Oliver Stone’s film “JFK.” Both are works of fiction meant to turn historically accepted events on their heads. In “JFK” Kevin Costner’s character tries to disprove that Oswald killed the president; Grant thinks Richard III an innocent man. Both of these works make the original, accepted story of what ‘really’ happened sound preposterous. By the time all three hours of “JFK” were over I felt sorry for Oswald, I thought there was a conspiracy and hated Tommy Lee Jones even more. I took Oliver Stone’s word over what my text books told me. The same story proved true when I finished reading The Daughter of Time. If anything, both of these works definitely bring valid points to the forefront, and make one think about other possibilities rather than accepting what we are fed in our text books. Tey definitely convinced me that Richard III did not kill his nephews and his character blackened by Henry Tudor.
My opinion of Richard being innocent has a lot to do with Grant’s comment about ‘historians not being very interested in psychology.’ As described in TDOT, Richard had known the boys since their births and saw them as people; to Henr
That is why Richard has been so misunderstood for so long. Before his short reign as king, he was seen as a good natured man. He was an ‘effective lord of the north.’ “He upheld justice and brought to the North a peace and stability which it had not known for several generations (Hallam, 285).” It was only after his brother died and he was crowned king that things went downhill. This is also when Tudor entered the scenario. Just like the events surrounding the murder, Richard’s ‘evil’ character is all hearsay and based on rumors. During the time the murders occurred, it was rumors that were circulating. There wasn’t ever a formal accusation. According to history, the two boys were at the Tower at the time of Richard’s accession and there is no evidence that they ever emerged again. It was until much after the murders had happened that Tyrrell entered the picture as the actual murderer. “The responsibility was probably fastened on him because Henry VII at that time needed a scapegoat for dynastic reasons and Tyrrell was the only one of Richard’s inner circle still alive (Hallam, 287).” Richard was the victim of intentional bad publicity by an evil rival trying to steal his throne.
y they were symbols. It’s much easier to wipe out a symbol than a person. Also, TDOT brings up several other ‘common sense’ points against Richard’s villainy. How c
Example Essays Home
