When I got this recommendation by Amazon, a number of things appealed to me about the book and so I downloaded it. First, I’ve always been what’s known as a Ricardian. Second, in an early part of my career as a lawyer, I did some criminal work and have experience in breaking down elements of a crime. Third, my ancestors came from England and Scotland and I’ve always had a fascination with the history of the countries. As examples, I have Sir John and Sir Thomas Gresham in my line as well as I’m a MacDonald from Scotland. All this to say, the book is totally in the ambit of works that would attract me.

Josephine Tey wrote this book in 1951, but it still resonates today. The meticulous work by the detective laid up in the hospital with a broken leg seems to me to be on point with his conclusions. Inspector Alan Grant is a wonderful character who, in his experience on the force, has become sort of a self-styled expert on reading faces. He can usually tell (or so he tells himself) if someone is a criminal or an honest person by their face alone.

The side characters are well-drawn and I enjoyed them, especially Grant’s actress friend and his research assistant. His two nurses are both delightfully different from each other.

Bored with being laid up in the hospital and not drawn to the books his friends have dropped off for him, his actress friend decides to bring him some photos to amuse him. He lands on one of Richard III and says he appears to him to be a person to put in a judge category. When he’s told it’s Richard III, he can scarce believe it. Grant is sure the man couldn’t be a criminal based on his face. Grant can’t leave it alone and asks one of his nurses for a history book.

The adventure is on from that point. Grant becomes obsessed with figuring out exactly who killed the princes in the tower. What follows is a well thought out, meticulously researched, investigation into the very crime Richard has stood accused of for centuries.

I very much enjoyed this book. As a Ricardian since I began to read history, I was happy with the research Grant and his able American assistant did as well as the train of thought that led him to his conclusion. Yes, it’s fiction, but man, what a great job he did in his assessment (or should I say Josephine Tey did?).

One thing that I had to look up for myself was why the book was called Daughter of Time as there was no daughter. Interestingly, the name comes from a quote by Sir Francis Bacon about truth being revealed over time. History is written by the victors and in my humble opinion, as well as many others’, Henry Tudor was a usurper and had a very tenuous right to be king, so he had to slander Richard to quell any potential uprisings.

According to Bacon, true knowledge comes from evidence and research over time, rather than just believing what authority figures say. Looking at the historical records of how loyal Richard was to his brother, how he forgave those who betrayed him over the years of his life and spared their lives when it may not have been in his best interests, as well as his fair way of ruling and trying to unite the various factions of the red and white roses, this book makes sense to me.

To the Tudor loyalists, read this novel and see what you think. To my fellow Ricardians, read this novel, you’ll enjoy it like I did.