GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2002-03 > 1017187586
From: (Hans Vogels)
Subject: Re: BLOOD ROYAL- The Daughter of Time
Date: 26 Mar 2002 16:06:26 -0800
References: <email@example.com>, <002101c1d112$3aa3e2c0$fcc3fc9e@D9080911>
(Sutliff) wrote in message news:<002101c1d112$3aa3e2c0$>...
> Curiously Leese cites Josephine Tey's _The Daughter of Time_ as a
> source. Her use of a work of fiction is probably indicative of how much
> respect this book ought to receive.
What's wrong with "The Daughter of Time"? This book, though fiction,
has been an inspiration to me since the end of the seventies when I
accidentally noticed the cover of the paperback. Never again shall I
blindly accept what some schoolbook tells me about the known history.
Bertram Fields with his Royal Blood, Richard III and the mystery of
the princes (1998), did a niece job of further filling in the
historical background and facts. But when it comes to the point of
drawing conclusions he fails to convince me that Richard III did it.
Untill further evidence I'll stick to the conclusions of inspector
Grant :-) Henry Tudor had everything to gain and did a nice job of
covering up after the crime.