Carol Umberger

The only thing that this series is any good as are Romance novels as Historical fiction they fail on almost every account, and I would strongly advise readers against ‘learning’ their history from them, or basing their knowledge of the period upon them.

The storylines seemed formulaic, repetitive and predictable- hurting man/woman with issues falls for good looking girl/guy (usually also with issues) who they can’t stand at first, and end up falling hopelessly in love as is the change show more in political affiliations of the protagonists at least one of whom always begins on England’s side but ‘sees the light’ before the end of the book, realises how evil the English are, but righteous the cause of Scotland is and switches sides.
The villains are almost always one-dimensional, and have to go around doing really bad things like rape, murder, or killing children for the audience to realise how bad they are- yet their actions very often have little or no motivation- they just do what they do because they’re bad.

In this novel the ‘hurting woman’ is Gwyneth Comyn, a relative of the John Comyn was murdered by none other than Robert Bruce in a church (the official line that Comyn was an evil traitor and puppet of England who betrayed and provoked Bruce is followed of course). She is separated from her family and her betrothed after the murder, and forced to live incognito, gets raped by the bad guy whom she wrongly identifies as the hero Adam MacIntosh. He is a close friend of Robert Bruce and of course does not realize the true identity of the woman the law requires him to marry.

To cut a long story short, Adam and Gywneth must overcome lots of obstacles and difficulties before the course of their love can run smoothly, the bad guy does lots of nasty things and keeps trying to kill the hero, Gwyn gets persuaded to change sides by her cousin and the War with England begins in earnest.

Historically speaking, there are serious problems with the series. Principally I think this stemmed from a failure to grasp the complexities of medieval power politics, the root causes of the respective conflicts between Bruce and Comyn, Scotland and England, and gross the over-simplification of history.
I believe conflicts and events such as those depicted in these novels cannot really be whittled down to a simple matter of ‘goodies’ versus ‘baddies’ or righteous downtrodden Scots (or ‘Celts’) struggling against the malignant evil of the brutal English imperialists without a certain degree of distortion.

Hence, the need to have the characters ‘support the right’ and change sides from Scotland to England because they realise how evil one side is
results in characters being depicted as having switched their allegiance to Bruce when they did not do so in reality.
These include the Comyns who were not reconciled to Bruce as the novel claims, and in reality son of John Comyn was killed fighting on the English side at Bannockburn.
Or actions which might really have been motivated by self-interest or political expediency are presented as having been wrought in the patriotic cause of freedom.

Probably the worst (but most inevitable) historical inaccuracy was the way in which the English were claimed to have caused the war in Scotland and been behind the strife between Comyn and Bruce. Yet in reality Bruce and Comyn had rival claims to the Scottish throne, a circumstance which was almost bound to bring them into conflict, when the death of the old King and his heir had already resulted in much political unrest before England came into the picture.

Finally, I seriously wonder whether the depiction of Scots and English characters was based on any personal first- hand acquaintance with persons of these nationalities, as most seemed to be stereotyped.
The English characters all seemed to speak with ridiculous high class accents (like in Braveheart and other Hollywood movies). Most of the Scottish men wear kilts (several centuries too early), speak with exaggerated versions of Lowland accents (or Gaelic) but the French that was spoken by both the English and Scottish aristocracy of the period is almost entirely absent.
Perhaps the accents were intended to make the different nationalities more readily identifiable to an American audience, but I’m not wholly convinced this was the case, and I for one just find that sort of thing unrealistic and annoying.

Overall, this series is one to avoid if you are looking for a well-researched, historically accurate and realistic fictionalised account of this period in Scottish history, or even a half-decent historical novel. show less

Early 1300s Scotland: A Scottish noblewoman named Kathyrn has a predatory English Knight after her, who wants to marry her to inherit her ailing father’s lands. He tricks her into sleeping with him with a promise of marriage, she realises how awful he is and gets him chased off the next day, but becomes pregnant, yet somehow manages to conceal birth of subsequent baby from him.

A while later, Robert Bruce turns up, and arranges a marriage between her and his illegitimate son to make sure show more the wicked English can’t get her land and ensure her loyalty. Said son does not seem nice, he and Kathyrn don’t like each other at first and don’t want to consummate the marriage so they can separate at a later date, but gradually fall in love.
Meanwhile evil villain still wants Kathryn and makes repeated attempts to kidnap her (why he cannot just find another wealthy heiress to marry I don’t know), making an enemy of Robert Bruce’s son in the meantime before events come to head at Bannockburn....

Where to start with this novel! It seems to be one those second rate ‘historical’ romances that is corny and clichéd, rather formulaic, as well as being historically questionable and implausible.
The representations of both Scottish and English people and culture consist mainly of silly anachronistic stereotypes.
Hence, there are men in kilts galore (at a time when these likely did not even exist in the form that we know them today) bagpipes and lots of bonnie lasses and all speaking with exaggerated accents. All that was missing was the haggis.
Then there were the English, with accents resembling those of their counterparts in Braveheart and other Hollywood movies with seemingly little or no regional variation of accents at all, so that the moment the characters travel a few miles over the border, everyone speaks like Queen Elizabeth II.

The simple fact that the majority of the English and much of the Scottish aristocracy would likely have spoken French as their first language in the early part of the fourteenth century when this novel is set does not even seem to come into the equation.

The English bad guy is no less ridiculously stereotypical and his character is so exaggerated and unconvincing that is hard to take him seriously even as the villain. He has no real motivation for being bad (expect being English) so he has to do lots of really bad things to emphasise his badness like seducing Scottish girls, beating up a Scottish squire and repeatedly trying to kidnap the heroine.
Most of the Scottish characters seem sickly sweet. They are not perfect admittedly, but the Templar knight undergoing a crisis of faith, and religious doubts of the hero just appear unoriginal and contrived, and it is so predictable that he and the heroine will overcome their initial hostility to fall hopelessly in love by the end. The device of 'beautiful lady locked in tower who has to be rescued by knight in shining armour' actually seems to be used in this novel when the villain kidnaps the heroine.

Yet for all his efforts, he leaves her virtually unguarded so that she is easily rescued by a Scotsman disguised as a priest (how many times has that been done before?).

Other aspects of the historical content of this and novel fare little better, as it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies, some of them seemingly deliberate. Yes the period details are there, but sometimes just seem superficial. For instance, at least one character seems to change sides in each of the successive stories, an act that is presented in high minded moral terms when they ‘see the light’ and come to realise the righteousness and justice of Scotland’s cause.

More significantly, historical figures who never supported Robert Bruce, such as the Comyn family and their kinsmen of Clan MacNab are depicted as going over to Bruce’s side in this series, when they never did anything of the kind in reality, and suffered greatly at Bruce’s hands for their opposition to his rule.

In the Bannockburn battle scene Edward II King of England is depicted as having sat on his horse behind the lines for the entire duration of the battle, when in reality he was in the thick of the fighting, as a King was expected to be. Edward may have had to be physically forced to leave the battlefield when it was obvious that the English had lost, and he did not run away like a coward at the first hint of danger to his person, as this novel makes out.

Throughout the novel and series, the English characters are condemned for ‘unchivalrous’ or dishonourable conduct, which the author often highlights and emphasises. Yet, towards the end of the novel the Scottish characters kill the villain in an act that would have been regarded as a total breach of chivalric practice and convention. Yet the author and characters make absolutely no mention of this deed being unchivalrous and dishonourable, though if the author had studied the medieval code of chivalry, she should likely have known it to be so.

Such a double standard applied to history and morality strikes me as not only hypocritical, but also misleading and perhaps even dishonest. This for me was one of the most objectionable aspects of this series. show less

This book is a good example of what happens when a person's view of history is clouded by prejudice, and bigotry. Historical facts seem to have been distorted to suit an individual agenda. The attitude towards certain groups (in this case the English) and events is biased and hypocritical.

The English are condemned as dishonourable for attacking the Scottish army at night, in the first chapter. Later the the book the Scottish army attacks the English at night, but for them it is perfectly show more acceptable to do so.

In the prologue Edward II and his knights attack a Scottish village and kill women and children. For this he is demonized as an evil child-killer. The massacre in question, however, never took place and the village does not exist. The English are condemned for inflicting suffering on innocent people throughout the series.

When, later in the book, a Scottish nobleman drives English peasants out of thier homes (which could have resulted in death from starvation/exposure), and devastates the English countryside, his actions are justified as strategic necessity, and it is implied that the English deserved to suffer (because they were English.)

Knighthood is depicted as a sacred vocation, that requires it's adherents to live upright, righteous lives. As opposed to the reality of knights as violent men in a brutal age, living by their own rules.

If you want something that is balanced perspective on historical events, and realistic, multi-faceted characters, avoid this entire series. show less

Carol Umberger has written another great story in the Scottish Crown Series! I didn’t think book 2 would be as good as book one, but this story was just as good, if not better.
This story is written in the early 1300’s when the Scots under Robert the Bruce are struggling to gain freedom from England. Now to some, like me, that may not sound like an era you would be interested in, but trust me, the story line is captivating.
Countess Kathryn de Lindsay has just lost her father and she show more desperately needs a protector from an English nobleman who wants her for her land. Although she thought he loved her, she soon discovers he is not the man she thought he was. Along comes what she thinks is her enemy, Bryan Mackintosh who takes over her home and village as they surrender to the Scots. Neither Bryan nor Kathryn want to admit the attraction each of them have for each other. There is mistrust, resentment and also longing, which makes for a great interaction between these two people. (There is also a great battle between England and the Scots throughout this story if you are into that too.)
I once again read this story quickly as it just captivated me and held my interest throughout the book. A lot of times when an author writes a series one or more books will be a little weaker than another. So far the first two books in this series have been equally beyond my expectations! Now I am on to book three! show less