Hum. I read this entirely but passed my 'willing suspension of disbelief' boundary by around chapter 2. Why did I read on? I think I was just agog to see what stunt this author would pull next.
Do not read this if you don't want to read spoilers - sorry, can't be bothered to keep tucking bits away - there are too many of them.
I had thought this was a debut novel but not so. It was, I think, the author's first attempt at HF and much of my complaint is to do with her awful, poor research - though she seems, from the Author's note, to feel she had done a great deal. Someone needs to tell her that the devil is in the detail.
First, the premise of this novel is the relationship of two knights setting off on Crusade with Richard I. They fall in love but Henry resists this, seeing it as sin. Stephan is completely comfortable with being a man who swives men (one of her crimes is in 'writing forsoothly') - but for lust, not love. So they are both a bit confused. Into this mix come two pickpocket boys they pick up along the way and adopt (as you do); one of these becomes a body servant to Sir Robin, friend of the King and Parfait knight. Their names are Allan and Little John. Robin, Alan and Little John - remind you of anything? So, we know where book 2 will be going. The pickpocket boys end up on familiar terms with Queen Joanna and Queen Berengaria (as you do). Henry and Stephan end up on familiar terms as well (also with the Royals but not quite in the same way) and that's when the wheels really come off. The drama! The angst! I can see why Henry fancies Stephan but what on earth does Stephan see in Henry? All this aside - the author acknowledges that Richard I may not be gay but fails to comprehend that 'gay' is a meaningless term for the time. She writes all this but doesn't seem to 'get' it. Sexual orientation didn't exist. Sodomy was a catch-all term for sexual acts that were proscribed by the Church. I have to ask - had Henry been hot for another woman, would he have felt so guilty about his future wife? I doubt it. The the author kills off the future wife just as Stephan finally gets his wicked way; the news is delivered to Henry (via a tear-stained letter from his father) that Alys and his mother have died of the plague. Fresh out of bed from a leg-over situation, he immediately has a monumental hissy-fit and starts flouncing around in true queenly style. Poor Stephan. Then all their friends pile in to sort them out and all reassure Henry it was 'meant to be' etc - this includes him confiding in the aforementioned children (as you would) and getting winsome and wise words in response. Sheesh! I don't even see why the author opted for a gay romance but it is carried out in modern style and none of this would have happened at that time as she portrays it. Tosh!
Next: the history - that is the other history, the one made up of fact. Was it too much to ask that the author might look at a few garments online to see what women were wearing at the time?
P108 "Ringlets....fell to her shoulders, and the jade gown she wore revealed creamy white skin. Berengaria's deep red gown was trimmed with pearls and gold and dipped precariously at her bosom." What century, exactly, were they in? It seems to me that the author went down to Barnes and Noble and looked at the front of a few bodice-rippers for her ideas on women's clothes of the time.
It is recorded fact the Richard respected his foe, Saladin. Yet Ms Newcomb has him vilifying Saladin at every turn.
The Battle for Messina - I found two contemporary accounts of the battle online without having to press search more than once. Yet Ms Newcomb's battle didn't follow them, no, no, no, not at all! She had knights on their destriers in city streets (where they would have been on foot) firing arrows from horseback. 1) Robin was famed (in legend) for his skill with the long bow - you could not have used a long bow from horseback. Nor could you have used a crossbow. Give them a lance, spear, sword or mace and I am happy - but bow and arrow on horseback in city streets - don't make me laugh! She also has all these knights wearing cloaks at the time - how was that going to work? 'I'll just whip out my trusty bow and arrows.....unfff.....drat!.....just a minute while I get this cloak untangled....aaarrggghhh!' Dead. After they all pratted about in cloaks with their destriers and bows and arrows, the Emperor Tancred (unsurprisingly) got away and none of the rest of the battle was told by Ms Newcomb who was probably ogling something in blue velvet (did not exist at the time) meanwhile. As the contemporary report tells, Tancred regrouped and planned to attack Richard the next day but Richard stole a march on him and attacked him during the night following a forced march. The two kings then made peace and formed an alliance. Ms Newcomb missed all of this.
It's good book for exemplifying the reasons not to allow sexual relationships in the army, I think. Next thing, H and S are on patrol but so distracted by their arguing over to sin or not to sin that they are both taken down by a single Saracen and almost die (heroically, of course). Robin sails in and rescues them and they both recover. Now, how Henry managed that after being shot in the femoral artery (so much blood described) and then having the really sensible idea of pulling the arrow out and THEN running off to save Stephan from the Saracen with blood spurting from his leg and promptly collapsing in his own heart's blood; he should have been made to sit on the naughty step once he got better - that's if he didn't die of an infection meanwhile.
Finally, language. Please make it believable. On p94 we have "....spouted off in agonizing detail how it took two slashes to sever the head from the body of one of their enemies. 'His eyes bulged like the young maid who saw my engorged cock and nearly fainted with fright.'" I seriously cannot imagine any man in any time or place saying that - outside a really bad bit of porn.
There was so much incorrect detail in this book that my eyes bulged like......etc. Characterisation is wooden and dialogue uninspiring, not to mention repetitive where H and S are concerned. (How could he.....How could he not....etc). I have provided just one example of each of my problem areas.
I have no problem at all with a gay storyline, if the book is good and the story rings true, I'll read it. This book did not fit my criteria.