Royal Diaries: Elizabeth I

I have always been a reader even when I was a tiny human. So, imagine my surprise when I read Queen E's letters and I'm flash-backing hardcore to my childhood. "Why?" you ask? Because Elizabeth's letters remind me of the greatest books of my youth. The Royal Diaries series. And isn't it just a pretty damn good coincidence that I thought of that because guess who is one of the royals that starred in this series?

That's right, ladies and gents! Childhood meet Real Life. 

Now, it's been YEARS since I've read the Royal Diaries but I still was feeling some pretty strong nostalgia. 

The Royal Diaries are complete tonypandy. Sure, it's historical fiction so there's obviously some things that have been moved around a bit to fit the mold. But it's also historical fiction catered to children and young adults. That series laid a foundation for my reading habits and interests as I became older. I wouldn't have developed a love for Cleopatra if I hadn't read her Royal Diary. Same for Anastasia, Marie Antoinette, Mary Queen of Scots, etc. etc. etc.

There is no way to know what these young women thought when they were in their tweens but they plant a seed for kids to find out more.

So Queen E's letters were like candy for my inner child. But instead of complete tonypandy, these letters are R.E.A.L REAL!! Like, actual facts from the woman herself. Actual words! HNNNGHHGH I LOVE IT!

But what makes these letters even more awesome than they already are to me, is that we finally get a "voice" to this historical figure. We can listen to her talking when she's young, old, being a bad-ass, or trying to save her ass. We get a sense that she is a human being that we can tangibly see actually existing.

Obviously, Richard III existed. And obviously so did Caesar, but to see real paintings of Elizabeth and also read her speeches and private letters add a more colorful dynamic to her character that makes her more real. yes Yes YES! And now for my favorite E meme:

Tonypandy's got me pondering life

Over the years, I’ve been assigned a number of books to read for a variety of different classes. The majority of the time, I can tell just by glancing at the book whether or not I am going to enjoy the text. I seldom find my first impression to be wrong. However, I can honestly say “Daughter of Time” surprised me. I was under the impression that I was about to read a book which would simply spit out facts about Richard III; I certainly didn’t expect it be so thought provoking.

            Throughout the first few chapters, I knew I’d been wrong already, and was definitely interested in where the story would go. It wasn’t until this whole idea of “tonypandy” came up, though, that my mind really started racing. At first, I was just amazed at how easily Alan Grant made me question the legitimacy of everyone’s thoughts on Richard III. Everyone’s thoughts on the King were so negative, and so concrete, but when they were asked to elaborate on what they “know” about him, they’re responses were almost comical. The Amazon nurse said he had been born with a full set of teeth and chewed his way out of the womb. The Midget nurse never really supported herself, she just “knew”. Naturally, the more Grant researched, the more I started to believe he may be onto something.

            Sure, I thought about Richard III for a little while after I put the book down. I thought about messed up it would be if his image has been tarnished over the years, when he may not have actually been the villain he was made out to be. However, as I continued to read, I almost found it hard to concentrate on Richard III specifically. Richard is an important part of history, but in the grand scheme of things, such a small piece. Not to undermine his importance, but what if tonypandy is applicable to all of history?

            We grow up learning about thousands of years of human activity on Earth. I’ve sat in classrooms learning about history’s biggest wars, inventions and figures. I’ve been told which presidents were great, and which were terrible. I’ve been told who caused every major war, and who the “bad guys” were. BUT IT’S 2016. I wasn’t alive for 99% of things I’ve learned in history classes. My teachers also weren’t alive for most the content we learn, and neither were most of the historians putting this information in textbooks. So how do we know what to believe?

            Obviously historians and history teachers are essential, and most of what we’re taught is accurate; it’s just that after reading this book I feel like that “what if?” question will always be in the back my head as I go forward studying important figures and past events.

The Daughter of Time...Tonypany and Poppycock; Silly Stories Heraldedas Truth

"This day was our good King Richard

 piteously slain and murdered; 

to the great heaviness of this city."

...hardly the obituary of a murderer.  Something smells rotten and we ain't in Denmark.

First and foremost, let me just say as I learned the names of the characters in this book, my brain assigned Alan Grant with the image of which I already know him... there is only one Alan Grant and he is a dinosaur hunter.

Apparently my dear Dr. Grant is also a damned good detective and now has a British accent and a little lamb American sidekick.  And a sassy lady-friend...yes, every time Marta entered I immediately saw Emma Stone... with a British accent of course.

Back to the little lamb.  Brent Carradine is a rather handsome nerdy fella in my mind.  He's definitely an Ethan Hawke.  Here ya go.

So now you're partially caught up with the three constantly conversation characters in my mind.

Next, I believe that all history is Tonypandy.  Silly stories comprised of minimal reality and maximum fiction riddle the history books apparently not just in the United States, but apparently across the globe.  History is written by the writer.  That sounds so stupid but it's true.  He (or she) with the pen holds the power.  The reader blindly digests the words as truth and they are forever sealed in our minds as fact.

Having been raised in New Jersey, I learned of my own experience with Tonypandy over and over again.  My case in point is the Civil War.  Damn the evil South for their unwillingness to free the tortured slaves (yeah, the North had those too).  Oh, then let us look to the noble Northerners and their quest to free the slaves (well...actually they didn't really want to rock the boat and killed quite a few abolitionists).  Um...ok The South Was Right (great book, but not all true.)  The problem with history is that there is a right side, a wrong side, and the truth.  No one will ever know the absolute truths in life.  Everyone digests history with a bias and takes a side...even the infallible Alan Grant.

Personally, after reading this book (which may be pure Tonypandy, Hanky Panky, Gibberish etc) I quite like Richard III.  Despite personal pain he tried his best to unify his family.  He forgave for the greater good.  He didn't kill those boys.  However, everyone he should have killed and didn't came back and stabbed him in the ass (oh yeah, that was kind of literal huh?).  Sounds like had a family full of jerks much like the rest of us.  Powermongering, wealth-hunting, murderous (ok I don't have any murderers in my family... but I wouldn't put it past a few of them) jerks.

The people seemed to love Richard the III.  Most of the nonsense about him looks to have been created after Henry killed everyone that could speak for his character.  I like Richard, the hell with Henry.

Making It Up

Josephine Tey's book The Daughter of Time poses many questions that a reader wouldn't otherwise be asking. What is "history"? How can we know if something is truly fact? Is it actually possible to judge a book by it's cover? What stuck with me the most was the word "tonypandy" which I still cannot find a proper definition for, but we'll get to that.

Discovering that only some of what once was fact regarding Richard III is true, made Grant and the readers question how much of our history is actually just stories people told to fill in the blanks of what they didn't want people to know. When you think about it, that's how the education system has always taught us. The first time we learned about Thanksgiving, it was the most basic and pleasant description that adults could think to tell children. As we grew, the story became more violent and harsh. Now that we're grown, we say we "know" what happened when Columbus came to America, and we "know" what happened at the Boston Tea Party and Pearl Harbor and we "know" that the United States went to the moon in 1969. (Debating the moon landing is for another time) My point is that by these few accounts of false history having been passed through centuries of writings, can make an individual question any history book's legitimacy.

This is where the question "What is history?" meets the question "What is real?" It becomes difficult to answer when you cannot pinpoint a definition for the two. What we know to be true and real, may not have been. When I was six, I knew that unicorns were real! I was determined that the French took them all and were hiding them in the Catacombs. That happened in the past, but does that make it real? Does that make it history? In the novel, Grant and Carradine use the term "tonypandy" to describe false history. The two learn that their most reliable source for accounts of Richard III's life, was not reliable at all. Through other thorough investigating, they come to a conclusion about Richard III's true character, but who's to say that other sources were 100% accurate as well?

If you haven't noticed, this book has turned me into a major skeptic. It astounds me that there is no known individual who kept account of Richard III's life, leading to people making their own stories. The book really challenged what is and is not history, and it seems to define the term as actual events, whether known or not. While I agree with this, having said in class that history is something that happened in the past, I think it is flexible.

I mean to say that while history should be recorded as the true events that occurred, it is not always so. Sometimes there are gaps and unanswered questions - things people should have taken note of but didn't, or all records of the event became lost somehow. People would go mad if these gaps were not filled and questions remained open! Then again...sometimes "I don't know" can be a legitimate answer...

tonypandy... one hell of a word.

We all have a general understanding of the message of The Daughter of Time. How bias, perspective, and history add to the mystery of the already little know events surrounding Richard III.  We are taken into the authors thought process and research of the king. Recorded history itself is a mystery because of popular understanding and truism, victors write the history. I find it interesting that a single idea can shape the course of history. This is evident not only in today's world but understood by individuals in the past. It happens over and over, for example the 5th of November nearly 120 years after king Richard III. The 5th of November is still practiced today in an obscure way, now dubbed the million mask march.
 
I was a little put off when I first started reading the book. I kept coming across words I have never seen and didn't understand. So naturally I had to look them up. It was an annoying process for me. As I continued reading and started to get pulled into the pages, coming across a word I did not understand was like being interrupted during a movie. On the quest to discovering what the author of the mystery novel wanted to say about history, I was on a quest of my own trying to discover what words meant. Eventually I could understand them... until "tonypandy"

I focused on this term in trying to come up with a visual way of understanding it. I found the solution in Grant. Grant, like myself can pick up certain clues when he looks at faces. Looking at the Kings face I came up with a visual. I imagined the king was in the middle of circle of people. He was surrounded by the Tudors. They were playing the child's game of telephone. As information (history) got passed it continued to get muddied. On the outside of the ring were other people writing their accounts of Richard. The Tudors of course were bullies and wouldn't let the others join in the game. Thus we have tonypandy. Now we have conflicting accounts of history, facts, and perspectives surrounding Richard. No wonder he has that facial expression. His eye was twitching while he was taking his ring off. He was furious at the mockery and didn't want to hurt his "king" hand.
 

 Funny how an idea, in this case a visual idea with the help of a portrait can "accurately" shape history 60% of the time, throughout all of time.

What is Tonypandy?

What is Tonypandy? That is a great question, one I wish I had the answer to. Unfortunately, when I highlighted the term from The Daughter of Time on my iPad, there was no definition. All I know is that it has something to do with history. I have been wracking my brain trying to find the definition, or some kind of hint at what it might mean on the Internet.

The good news is that, from my point of view, it should be fairly easy to find. The bad news, it really isn't. There is no straight answer, and most of the links are just references to The Daughter of Time. Which made me give up halfway through on finding an answer online because before I knew it, I was clicking through the Google links and ended up on page eight before I decided, enough was enough.

In the end instead of looking it up online, I decided that I would see how it is used in The Daughter of Time and try and figure it out that way. My theory is that Tonypandy is something like a false accounting of history that everyone perceives as correct. That is how it was used, in my opinion. 

Though this book did get me thinking, what else is there that we get wrong about history? Their must be many things but we simply have no evidence to disprove how said history was recorded in the first place. 

On a side note, how crazy was this snowstorm, we have never had one this big in a long time and let me tell you, shoveling all of that snow was not fun. I’m surprised I was even able to get out of the house. I had to go out of the window and trudge my way over to the front door. Even after that my parents and I had to clear the snow off of the driveway and the cars, which took us a long time. Just shoveling a foot long path out of the snow took a long time because it was so deep.

What Truly is "Tonypandy?"

What truly is "Tonypandy?" Grant and Carradine use the term all throughout The Daughter of Time to describe the outcome of certain historical events. Now, I know we have discussed the fiction versus history and what the true definitions are in class, so I won't pose it that way again. I believe we all came to the conclusion that history is a series of significant events that have been recorded, either by documentation, or audio and/or visual representation, to describe the past. Fiction is a fabrication of reality, which can sometimes seem realistic. Finally, historical fiction is using the fabricated world to tell the series of historical events.

I believe Josephine Tey uses historical fiction to tell her story of what she believed really happened to Richard III. Grant, the main character, is diving into all of this research that exists in the "real" world. All of the books, he uses and quotes from all had to be read by Josephine Tey herself before she could have put them into her novel. The author portrays herself as Grant in the story, and is bringing in other characters to help her solve the mystery of what really happened to Richard III.

But let's bring it back to Tonypandy, what is it? Grant presents the term tonypandy to Carradine, after he had informed Grant that the history we know of the Boston Massacre was fabricated into a larger event than what it actually was. We know it as a mass murder of Boston citizens after an uprising against the British soldiers stationed there, when it is revealed in the book that it was really only four people that had died. The story was exaggerated to get more press. Grant brought up the issue between the government of South Wales and looters, and how the story was exaggerated to make it seem that the government sent the military in on welsh miners. Grant used the name of the city, Tonypandy, that the riots took place in to describe events that were exaggerated in similar ways.

Tonypandy Riots of 1910 to 1911

So based off of Grant's and Carradine's examples of Tonypandy, I believe that it is the exaggeration of an event to get everyone to believe it is a "good" versus "bad" situation. The "good" being the victims, and the "bad" being the government. They speak of Tonypandy so much in this novel because they make the realization that the majority of the history of Richard III's time was written after his reign ended, which was in the Tudor reign, and the Tudor's were not very big fans of Richard III. Josephine Tey had to read through all of the Tonypandy herself to find her answer as to what really happened to Richard III, so she published her struggle of reading in between the lines in the novel as Grant's struggle.

Tonypandy of Time

First off, I would like to mention that autocorrect keeps changing “Tonypandy” to “to panda”. Not that it would be totally awesome for there to be pandas in this story, but the story would have  gone from history disguised as a mystery novel to a totally fictional story about two pandas trying to solve a mystery. Now that I think about it, it is not a bad idea somebody should write that fan-fiction. Anyway, enough with my obsession with pandas, it is time to figure out what in the world of the Oxford Dictionary is the word tonypandy? 

“It’s the damnedest silliest name, isn’t it?”

My handy-dandy dictionary on my ebook version of this book says… no word found… Ok…thanks iBooks for your help. Sure I could have just googled  “Tonypandy definition” but that would only be only half of the fun of figuring out what the word means. Since I am not going to take the easy way out, I am going to have to figure out this word the hard way, reading for context clues. Suddenly this is feeling like I am taking the SAT again at least this time I know what I am doing, hopefully. 

Each time the word “tonypandy” in The Daughter of Time appears it is when Grant looks at a historical reference. Even so Grant does end up adopting this term and using it quite often in the story. Grant observes multiple sides of who Richard III really was. Some people believe he was an innocent and noble king; while other believed he was an evil, vicious, vile murder who killed the princes in the tower. So, would tonypandy mean a widely believed fact about a historical event and or person? Even then, it begs the question what is truly history and what is truly fiction? 

As both words have similar meanings in a way, history is what truly happened in the past by historical documents as proof and fiction is tale that does not have or has little any backup proof. But here is the thing, how do truly know that the history we believe is truly what happened? Let me paint this picture, in kindergarten we learned that the first thanksgiving was all joyful and happy. But, we later learned that it was not the case and in fact it was the opposite. Henry the IV had a historian to write down all the events so how do we know that what he wrote down was the truth because mostly likely he would have been persuaded to write nasty things about the previous king to make the previous king look bad and make the current king look great.

Well, whatever tonypandy actually means I can guess it has to do with something with history. Ok I could just google it at this point after going through all this analysis but, there is snow outside that is begging to be played with ( Don’t judge me, I’m from Southern California, there is no such thing as snow 😏☃)