What do you think?
Rate this book
Mark of the Cross
Philip, the illegitimate son of a powerful English lord, is taken in by his father but given no claim to an inheritance. Gareth, the legitimate son, is cruel and abusive to Philip. When their father dies of a heart attack, Gareth frames Philip for murder, and on the eve of his expected execution, Philip escapes to begin life as a fugitive and mercenary.
His longtime love, Beatrice, awaits him, fervently hoping circumstances will change. But when she finds herself at the mercy of Gareth, who will stop at nothing to acquire her and her lands, she strikes a most grievous bargain. Bitter and angry at the news, Philip devises a dangerous plan for vengeance. But love and hatred both have consequences, and he must face the truth that heaven will not be ignored.
His longtime love, Beatrice, awaits him, fervently hoping circumstances will change. But when she finds herself at the mercy of Gareth, who will stop at nothing to acquire her and her lands, she strikes a most grievous bargain. Bitter and angry at the news, Philip devises a dangerous plan for vengeance. But love and hatred both have consequences, and he must face the truth that heaven will not be ignored.
448 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2006
1 person is currently reading
134 people want to read
About the author
Judith Pella
95 books234 followersJudith Pella is a bestselling, award-winning author whose writing career spans two decades. Her in-depth historical and geographical research combines with her skillful storytelling to provide readers with dramatic, thought-provoking novels. She and her husband make their home in Scapoose, Oregon.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
October 16, 2016
This Historical romance novel fails because it tries so desperately hard to be something that it is not, that is an epic, memorable and truly touching love story. The heroine Beatrice is, for most of the story a shallow, spoiled, vain, self-centred shrewish brat.
We are supposed to believe that her ‘love’ for Philip at the beginning of the story is genuine and real, yet Beatrice was unable to even show Philip enough respect to accept that he simply did not want to have sex with her, and kept throwing herself at him regardless.
Her selfish desire to get what she wanted regardless of what the other person wanted did not seem very much like ‘true love’ at all. In fact, it looked like nothing more than lust and a childish infatuation, made all the more silly by Beatrice literally throwing tantrums every time Philip rejected her sexual advances.
Yet what is essentially a teenage crush is the central focal point of the entire story, and it seemed to me that the author’s attempt to turn something so superficial into a lifelong undying love between the protagonists just did not ring true.
Philip was a more well-rounded character, and the reasons for his anger, bitterness and sense of rejection seemed genuine enough. Yet his constant tendency to blame every ill-circumstance that befell him on God, rather than realising it might be due to his own shortcomings or the actions of humans again did not seem plausible, and just seemed to be a convenient if rather implausible excuse for Philip’s religious scepticism.
There are number of inconsistencies within the narrative, for example when Beatrice first marries Gareth is it stated that the marriage was not forced, because she freely consented to it to protect her son and his inheritance. Yet later on the characters keep on saying that Beatrice WAS forced to marry Gareth after all.
In another place early in the story Beatrice states that she had lost the desire to engage in a pre-marital liaison with Philip or anyone after Gareth attempted to get his wicked way with her, yet a few short chapters later she does total U-turn forgets her commitment to chastity and is trying to get Philip to have sex with her for the umpteenth time.
I found the idea that Medieval people would totally turn their backs on religion because bad things had happened to them to be out-of-place and historically questionable, because people in Middle Ages had a very different view on the relationship between a benevolent God and and human suffering to modern people. Thus Philip and Beatrice’s views and attitudes in this regard were entirely modern.
There were a number of other historical issues, the most notable being that the author makes the all too common error (in the sight of a Historian like me at least) of judging the past by the standards of the present, and imposing modern values, beliefs and attitudes onto another age, as well as attributing modern political ideals and social mores to her characters at a time when people did not have these.
Thus there seems to be a clear attempt to draw comparisons between the ‘Baron’s War’ of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester and his noble sympathisers against King Henry III and the American Revolutionary War with lots of talk of people fighting for their ‘freedom’ ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ against a ‘tyrannical’ ruler to force him to adhere to the Provisions of Oxford and Magna Carta which are presenting as something akin to the ‘Bill of Rights’. It wasn't, and De Montfort was not trying to create a republic.
In another passage Philip expresses doubt as the authenticity of supposed Holy Relics, but his scepticism arises from what is basically modern scientific knowledge and methodology, which medieval people simply did not have.
Further on, Beatrice demonstrates her staggeringly advanced knowledge of microbiology and bacterial infection by expecting physicians to use Modern medical techniques that could only arise from this. Yet a few passages later, she is back to binding up wounds with dirty rags or cloths, which amazingly do not become infected.
The characters also have an uncanny ability to be able to see in the dark, as they are often able to gauge people’s emotions by looking closely at the eyes or facial expressions of somebody standing many feet away from them in a pitch dark room, or one lit only by candles.
The conclusion of the book, with its neatly wrapped up happy ending is predictable and a little corny to say the least, as well as being fraught with historical errors.
Beatrice’s ‘repentance’ for her adultery and incest with Philip appeared contrived, fake, and seems to have come from nowhere, as she certainly never expressed any regret or remorse over their liaison, yet we are told that she had been ‘repentant’ when all she seemed to be sorry about was losing Philip and her lot in life, and claimed the product of her adultery was a ‘gift from God’.
It was inevitable that the author would kill off the baddie Gareth (Beatrice’s husband and Philip’s half-brother) so that they could legitimately be together, and so all Philip’s moral qualms and insistence that he did not want him dead were rather hard to take seriously.
Also, according to the Laws of the period it would have been doubtful that Philip would even have been allowed to marry Beatrice after Gareth’s death as she was his sister-in-law. Certainly they would have required a dispensation from the Pope, and even then the wedding might not have been deemed permissible. Neither would their infant son Hugh have been legitimised by their marriage six months after his birth because, under English law at this time any child born outside wedlock was still regarded as illegitimate even if its parents got married afterwards.
Even though there are some technical terms and period details the historical inconsistencies and inaccuracies makes the author’s research and knowledge of the period appear to be sorely lacking. Ignoring the historical shortcomings and some suspension of disbelief is definitely required when reading this story which is entertaining enough, but is not really anything special.
We are supposed to believe that her ‘love’ for Philip at the beginning of the story is genuine and real, yet Beatrice was unable to even show Philip enough respect to accept that he simply did not want to have sex with her, and kept throwing herself at him regardless.
Her selfish desire to get what she wanted regardless of what the other person wanted did not seem very much like ‘true love’ at all. In fact, it looked like nothing more than lust and a childish infatuation, made all the more silly by Beatrice literally throwing tantrums every time Philip rejected her sexual advances.
Yet what is essentially a teenage crush is the central focal point of the entire story, and it seemed to me that the author’s attempt to turn something so superficial into a lifelong undying love between the protagonists just did not ring true.
Philip was a more well-rounded character, and the reasons for his anger, bitterness and sense of rejection seemed genuine enough. Yet his constant tendency to blame every ill-circumstance that befell him on God, rather than realising it might be due to his own shortcomings or the actions of humans again did not seem plausible, and just seemed to be a convenient if rather implausible excuse for Philip’s religious scepticism.
There are number of inconsistencies within the narrative, for example when Beatrice first marries Gareth is it stated that the marriage was not forced, because she freely consented to it to protect her son and his inheritance. Yet later on the characters keep on saying that Beatrice WAS forced to marry Gareth after all.
In another place early in the story Beatrice states that she had lost the desire to engage in a pre-marital liaison with Philip or anyone after Gareth attempted to get his wicked way with her, yet a few short chapters later she does total U-turn forgets her commitment to chastity and is trying to get Philip to have sex with her for the umpteenth time.
I found the idea that Medieval people would totally turn their backs on religion because bad things had happened to them to be out-of-place and historically questionable, because people in Middle Ages had a very different view on the relationship between a benevolent God and and human suffering to modern people. Thus Philip and Beatrice’s views and attitudes in this regard were entirely modern.
There were a number of other historical issues, the most notable being that the author makes the all too common error (in the sight of a Historian like me at least) of judging the past by the standards of the present, and imposing modern values, beliefs and attitudes onto another age, as well as attributing modern political ideals and social mores to her characters at a time when people did not have these.
Thus there seems to be a clear attempt to draw comparisons between the ‘Baron’s War’ of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester and his noble sympathisers against King Henry III and the American Revolutionary War with lots of talk of people fighting for their ‘freedom’ ‘rights’ and ‘liberty’ against a ‘tyrannical’ ruler to force him to adhere to the Provisions of Oxford and Magna Carta which are presenting as something akin to the ‘Bill of Rights’. It wasn't, and De Montfort was not trying to create a republic.
In another passage Philip expresses doubt as the authenticity of supposed Holy Relics, but his scepticism arises from what is basically modern scientific knowledge and methodology, which medieval people simply did not have.
Further on, Beatrice demonstrates her staggeringly advanced knowledge of microbiology and bacterial infection by expecting physicians to use Modern medical techniques that could only arise from this. Yet a few passages later, she is back to binding up wounds with dirty rags or cloths, which amazingly do not become infected.
The characters also have an uncanny ability to be able to see in the dark, as they are often able to gauge people’s emotions by looking closely at the eyes or facial expressions of somebody standing many feet away from them in a pitch dark room, or one lit only by candles.
The conclusion of the book, with its neatly wrapped up happy ending is predictable and a little corny to say the least, as well as being fraught with historical errors.
Beatrice’s ‘repentance’ for her adultery and incest with Philip appeared contrived, fake, and seems to have come from nowhere, as she certainly never expressed any regret or remorse over their liaison, yet we are told that she had been ‘repentant’ when all she seemed to be sorry about was losing Philip and her lot in life, and claimed the product of her adultery was a ‘gift from God’.
It was inevitable that the author would kill off the baddie Gareth (Beatrice’s husband and Philip’s half-brother) so that they could legitimately be together, and so all Philip’s moral qualms and insistence that he did not want him dead were rather hard to take seriously.
Also, according to the Laws of the period it would have been doubtful that Philip would even have been allowed to marry Beatrice after Gareth’s death as she was his sister-in-law. Certainly they would have required a dispensation from the Pope, and even then the wedding might not have been deemed permissible. Neither would their infant son Hugh have been legitimised by their marriage six months after his birth because, under English law at this time any child born outside wedlock was still regarded as illegitimate even if its parents got married afterwards.
Even though there are some technical terms and period details the historical inconsistencies and inaccuracies makes the author’s research and knowledge of the period appear to be sorely lacking. Ignoring the historical shortcomings and some suspension of disbelief is definitely required when reading this story which is entertaining enough, but is not really anything special.
Read
August 5, 2011i would not recommend it
March 26, 2016
I did not care for "Mark of the Cross." It was tedious reading. I choose not to finish the book. Thus I skimmed through it a lot, not even reading the final pages. It was a total disappointment.
May 27, 2018
I really loved this. This is about a man named Philip, who is the son of a lord. He is supposed to take the throne, but, his stepbrother, Gareth, feels that his is the rightful heir to the throne.
We also have a woman, Beatrice, who is Philip's longtime best friend and he also falls in love with her. Beatrice is waiting for him to return so the two can be together. However, Gareth wants to have Beatrice as his own wife. He only wants to marry her to get to the estate.
I found Gareth to be really abusive towards Beatrice. It was really great for me to see Bea and her servant escape. I loved seeing Bea and Philip finally wed at the end of the story. That ending made everything all better!
We also have a woman, Beatrice, who is Philip's longtime best friend and he also falls in love with her. Beatrice is waiting for him to return so the two can be together. However, Gareth wants to have Beatrice as his own wife. He only wants to marry her to get to the estate.
I found Gareth to be really abusive towards Beatrice. It was really great for me to see Bea and her servant escape. I loved seeing Bea and Philip finally wed at the end of the story. That ending made everything all better!
December 9, 2018
Disappointing.... unfortunately Judith Pella's writtings started going downhill at the 3 book of Sisters of Fortune and her spiral has continued, and gotten worse in Mark of the Cross. Too bad, I was enjoying her work before then. Although her words in this book were mostly understandable, there were several times it was confusing, especially at the comment about the babe coming two months early. Also, I read for pleasure. This book was anything but, yet it could have been, having content that could have been an outstanding book.
January 29, 2023
I couldn’t put this book down! A classic knight and love story but it was just what I wanted to read. Enough drama, suspense and love that it hit the spot. Not the best writing style but by no means the worst. A good summer or winter break read.
December 11, 2018
A good historical story, high lighting fudal kinghthood. And ending with the Christian Crudsades.
Very interesting.
Very interesting.
June 13, 2019
Enjoyable story,thought the end happened really quickly, could have been more detailed.
February 14, 2023
This book was interesting but sometimes it was difficult to keep track of everything that was going on.
February 13, 2017
I kept trying to read this over a year or so. It really seems to be written by a hormonal teenager. It is completely unrealistic. What is portrayed is not love but lust and infatuation. I didn't finish the book. I did read the last few pages, and I felt even more so that this ends up just glorifying lust and rising it to a level of love that it doesn't deserve.
December 24, 2011
A good one-time read. The storyline was pretty heart-wrenching and well portrayed. The historical references were well woven in. The romantic aspect in the story stemmed from two characters who were unable to be together. Sometimes their romance was sweet, other times it seemed rather strange and unbelievable-maybe due to 'holes' the character's portrayal. Beatrice seemed selfish and self centred to me at the beginning, but she was seen by her lover as kind and accomplished. Philip, the co-protagonist was a kind and lovable character who suffered due to his illegitemate birth. I found it rather disjointed how his character was later portrayed as brute and rough.
The 'God' aspect wasn't as clear as I expected it to be..
I would reccomend this book to mature readers due to infequent sexual references and several descriptions of physical violence.
The 'God' aspect wasn't as clear as I expected it to be..
I would reccomend this book to mature readers due to infequent sexual references and several descriptions of physical violence.
February 25, 2010
While the story line held great promise I am not one who enjoys books taht go on and on for too long. By the end of the book I really didn't care about Beatrice or Phillip. There were so many side stories going with so much time happening that I never felt like I really connected with the characters. I was happy with the way it ended and I am grateful for the way that Pella wrote the story.
January 13, 2012
The characters continuously experience a sort of "lost and found" turmoil which is sure to pick up your heart and drop it again. The blend of violence and sexuality, although tragic, was written tastefully and without excess. If you're interested in an historical romance, and looking for an easy read, I would suggest this book!
May 1, 2008
I felt like this book started kind of slow, but I really got into it after a while. It takes place during the 1200's which is different from historical fiction I usually read. In the end I enjoyed the book a lot and would recommend it to others.
November 20, 2009
Was a historical romance that was nice and clean but a bit of a downer. I was relieved at the end, but it suffered from what so many romance books do, a convoluted plot that is not very realistic. but if you want a nice piece of brain candy, it fits the bill.
September 3, 2009
Favorite Book
(can get a tad bit cheesy with the romance but great novel)
(can get a tad bit cheesy with the romance but great novel)
May 6, 2009
It is a powerful and moving book. The look into life in the middle ages is awesome.
September 3, 2016
Don't recommend. Too much violence.
April 14, 2016
One of my favourite books of all time
August 30, 2009
Of course I love it. It's a medieval romance!
October 21, 2017
An engaging story, but just a bit too predictable in some places and too fantastical in others. I enjoyed overall, though it was sometimes a little frustrating.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews