The Daughter Of Time

Brent returns after researching records associated with Edward IV’s death. Although contemporary historians insinuate that Richard had designs on the crown himself, none of the events of the time confirm this. Before his death, Edward stipulated that Richard was to act as sole regent until the king’s son grew to adulthood.

After Edward dies, Richard does not mobilize an army or show any signs of trying to stage an insurrection. He doesn’t separate his nephew from any retainers who might poison the boy’s mind against Richard. Instead, Richard calmly goes about the business of arranging his nephew’s coronation.

Brent and Grant discuss another instance of Tonypandy that took place when Richard was only 18. Historians accuse him of murdering the son of Tudor Henry VI in cold blood after the Battle of Tewkesbury. In reality, Henry’s son was executed by Edward’s servants on the king’s orders.

Brent has also discovered that an emergency council was held on June 8, 1483, that might have had important consequences for the succession. The researcher hasn’t located a copy of the proceedings yet. He plans to make another report to Grant when he has all the facts.

When Brent comes back from his latest round of research, he tells Grant about the council meeting of 1483. There, the Bishop of Bath reveals that he performed a secret marriage for Edward IV and Lady Eleanor Butler predating the king’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. This earlier marriage renders Edward’s children illegitimate and debars them from ascending the throne.

When Parliament convenes, it enacts a law known as Titulus Regius that declares Edward’s issue illegitimate and proclaims Richard to be the rightful king.

This news doesn’t sit well with a faction of nobles who plan to assassinate Richard before he can be crowned. John Morton, who wrote More’s discredited history book, is one of the conspirators.

The plot is discovered in time. Rather than killing all his would-be assassins, Richard pardons two of them. Grant observes that Richard’s desire to mend the rift between the York and Lancaster factions may have caused his undoing. His generosity hardly seems to fit the character of the murderer depicted in most history books.

Richard writes a personal letter pardoning Jane Shore, another of the conspirators, that is especially revealing. As Grant observes, “Indeed, considering it was written about a woman who had done him a deadly wrong, its kindness and good temper were remarkable. […] quite astonishing in the case of that reputed monster Richard III” (128-29).

With Brent away doing research, Grant receives a letter from his cousin. Responding to his earlier letter complaining about historical inaccuracy, she says nothing would surprise her about history. She goes on to mention several examples of falsified history in Scotland even more outrageous than the Tonypandy massacre.

Grant next wrestles with a series of contradictory facts that he’s discovered in his reading. Why would Morton go out of his way to suggest an earlier marriage for Edward IV with a different mistress who never claimed to have been married to him?

Why would Henry VII overturn Titulus Regius and command that all copies be destroyed unread? How could this benefit him? If the Tower princes were already dead before the invasion, why wouldn’t Henry and his supporters use this fact to discredit Richard?

Most important of all, why murder the two princes when Richard’s elder brother and sister also had children who might be contenders for the throne? Grant observes, “The place was what young Carradine would call just lousy with heirs” (137).

Grant concludes that Richard would never have murdered the two boys because such a tactic would be silly:

“It was brought home to him for the first time not only what a useless thing the murder of the boys would have been, but what a silly thing. And if there was anything that Richard of Gloucester was not, beyond a shadow of a doubt, it was silly” (137).

Grant decides to act as devil’s advocate and prove that the Bishop of Bath lied about performing a previous marriage for Edward IV. Every time he tries to analyze the case, he finds no evidence supporting the claim’s falseness.

Richard made no apparent move to harm his brother’s other children, who also posed a threat to his reign. In fact, he wanted to repeal the attainder against his brother George, thus allowing George’s son to succeed him as king.

Grant also wonders why Henry VII went to such great lengths to eradicate Titulus Regius since keeping it in place would shore up his own claim to the throne.

The dowager queen’s behavior is even more suspicious. If her son Richard had, in fact, murdered her two grandsons, why would she act as mediator to bring her other son back to the English court?

Grant tells Brent, “From the police point of view there is no case against Richard at all. And I mean that literally” (147).

Brent asks if Grant wants to write a book about their findings. When the detective demurs, Brent says he’ll write one: “I’m going to borrow a phrase from Henry Ford, and call it History Is the Bunk” (149).

Grant points out that they still need to figure out who actually murdered the two princes before Brent can write his book about the case.