Customer Reviews
Engaging, whimsical and concise - By: Morena, 18 Mar 2008 
Leaving aside the 'did-he-didn't-he' element for a minute, the book as a whole is witty & Grant's nurses & visitors are all memorably characterised, with their own strengths to offer to the investigation - Marta the flamboyant actress, Carradine the besotted young "woolly lamb" of a researcher, clumsy, over-sensitive Nurse Darroll & her schoolbooks. I liked the cantankerous detective Grant, too - very much a man who gets frustrated & excited on his quest for justice, rather than the cool-as-a-cucumber silently-stroking-his-moustache type. The Daughter of Time is enjoyably written & not just a dry mystery or polemic.
I said 'did-he-didn't-he', but actually there's never really any serious question here of whether Richard had his nephews killed. The suspense is allin the discovering of what sort of a man Richard was, what really did happen to the Princesin the Tower, & how. The Daughter of Time is quite an infamous Ricardian novel, credited with changing many minds about Richard III & sparking life-long interestsin him. To this day nobody can be sure exactly what he was like & what happened to the young princes. Tey's hypothesis, to the casual reader, is as good as any, though,in my opinion. It seems to add up to make a satisfying conclusion, although for all I know many a professional historian could prove it wrong.
It might help if you have already read up a little on Edward IV & Richard III, however. I had & I was glad of the background knowledge because it might otherwise have been a little hard to follow (to be fair, though, I'm the sort of reader who is constantly flipping back & forthin mystery novels & scratching my head). It's a short book with a fresh concept (even though it's now over 50 years old), so just the thing to divert & stimulate your mind on a summer's afternoon.
Was it Henry VII or Buckingham? - By: Mrs. Margaret Flower, 05 Jan 2008 I believed everythingin this book, but I already knew that Richard III probably hadn't killed the princesin the Tower. My daughter's reaction when I forced her to read this book was, "Well, it stinks, doesn't it?" That just about sums it all up. Shakespeare was writing for the Tudors don't forget & it was Elizabeth's grandfather who had the princes killed. There was a television programme where Stratford Johns & Frank Windsor "proved" it was Buckingham who dun it, but my money is on Josephine Tey.
Classic historical mystery - By: Lynette Baines, 28 Oct 2007 Inspector Alan Grant solves the murder of the Princesin the Tower form his hospital bedin this classic 1950s mystery. I'm fascinated by Richard III & one of the reasons is my reading of this book over 25 years ago. I've read it many times since. I've read dozens of books about Richard, but every now & then, I like to go back to where it all began & enjoy rediscovering the charm this book has for me. The charm isin the assumption that most people had at that time of Richard's guilt, mostly through Olivier's portrayal of Richardin Shakespeare's play. Grant is upset when he mistakes a portrait of Richard, "The monster of nursery stories. The destroyer of innocence. A synonym for villainy." for that of a great judge, a too-conscientious perfectionist. He begins his quest for the truth about Richard because his pride is hurt that he could be wrong, but he finds that he may not be so wrong after all. What if history & all the historians were wrong instead?
History is written by the winners - By: Aliena, 20 Mar 2007 
Inspector Grant of the Scotland Yard is stuckin a hospital bed, recovering from a broken leg. Since he's interestedin faces, his friend Marta brings him a stack of pictures, to cure him from the prickles of boredom he's suffering from. Grant becomes fascinated with a portrait of Richard III, one of the most notorious villainsin history, most known for killing his nephews, the princesin the Tower. But can this man, who mostly resembles a judge, really be a heartless murderer. Quickly frustrated with the lack of contemporary source material, Grant & a young American scholar tries to solve this historical mystery.
All I knew about Richard III & the princesin the tower I got from Shakespeare's play, which is far from flattering for the king. The portrait painted of himin this book is very different. It's incredibly fascinating, but I'm not quite sure how seriously to take it. But the mix of mystery & history is fun, & it's a joy to read. Perhaps the most interesting part is the general discussion of how history is written by the victors.
An invitingly cosy 'who done it' that reads well for Richard III - By: Norman Laurence, 03 Mar 2007 A beautifully clear & perhaps whimsical novel that is definitely not for the die-hard `Richard III was definitely guilty' brigade. The book is perhaps betterin the hands of the lover of the 'who done it' transformed - with the story becoming a warm, inviting & perhaps relatively undemanding read, a read that is itself very representative of a more cosy, easy to understand yesteryear (it was writtenin the early fifties).
The novel's strength is the rather whimsical notion that a recuperating police officer, who is visually highly intuitive, has seen a portrait of Richard III from his hospital bed & he has decided that this cannot be the face of the murderer revealed by Shakespeare. However, it's this very whimsy that works so well, as it provides a most belevable human edge to the accompanying 1950s criminal detection procedure.
`The Daughter Of Time' ultimately convinces, charms & reassures. If you feel hopeful about Richard III's innocence, uneasy about the `black legend' soubriquet, & love a feel-good, pleasurable read, then I strongly recommend this work as perhaps a starting point. Indeed, the book's hidden strength may well be that once you have read it you will want to explore a lot more of the same genre. If you find something as charming then please let us all know.
