Final answer:
The reliability of Sir Thomas More as an eyewitness is questioned owing to potential biases from his service under a Tudor monarch and lack of direct access to key events, likening his accounts to political propaganda rather than factual history.
Step-by-step explanation:
The rationale casting doubt on Sir Thomas More’s reliability as an eyewitness to Richard III’s life is developed by Grant and Carradine in The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey because More's allegiance to the Tudor dynasty influences his account and may reflect his biases, especially since he served under Henry VII, a Tudor monarch. Moreover, it is argued that More did not have direct access to all key events, suggesting that his works could not be based on primary observation but rather on hearsay or second-hand accounts. Consequently, the authors propose that More's account of Richard III's life could be akin to political propaganda, crafted to serve the interests of the ruling Tudor regime rather than to accurately portray historical events.
For instance, in parliamentary debates, where records are publicly available, politicians might frame their arguments in ways that also serve their interests, knowing that their remarks will be scrutinized by the public. Similarly, narrators in literature, like Stevens in Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, recall events in a biased or selective manner, casting doubt on the reliability of their narrations. This parallel between memory and history illustrates how both can be subject to distortion and manipulation, intentional or not, as shown through the developments of Stevens' character and his relationship with history.