The First Princess of Wales by Karen Harper

The First Princess of Wales Reviews

• 
  Lady

  Forget the flimsy writing. Tear yourself away from the stiff, awkward, melodramatic, tiresome, inane, and predictable dialogue. Lament not the fact that the characters don't change much over a 15 year period, or that Joan's stomach remains "flat" (as the author reminds us over and over again) through the births of three children. As if.
  
  No, let us instead dwell upon the fact that Karen Harper literally rewrote history for the sole purpose of turning what was most likely an affectionate union between Joan of Kent and Edward the Black Prince into the Love Affair of the Milennium. (Never mind that the love affair between Edward's younger brother, John of Ghent, and Lady Katherine Swynford was also supposed to be the Love Affair of the Milennium. Best not tell that to Karen Harper.) Harper would have us believe that Joan was married against her will to two different men, and was desperately heartsick all the while for the Black Prince. In this weird land called Reality that Harper apparently hasn't heard of, Joan of Kent married knight Sir Thomas Holland in secret, indicating that the two of them really did share true romantic feelings. Then Thomas went off to war for a very long time and Joan, fearing to disclose her marriage, was married off to William Montacute, the heir to the Earl of Salisbury. When Thomas eventually came back, Joan and Thomas both had a lot of explaining to do.
  
  Meanwhile, Joan had produced not three, but five children before she married the Black Prince. Yes, there is some evidence that Edward had feelings for Joan, as he presented her with the odd gift or two while they lived at Court together. But I'm not feeling the Love Affair of the Milennium here - at least, not from Joan. After Joan and Edward were married, Edward had a beautiful tomb constructed in Canterbury Cathedral, complete with sculptures of his wife's face, so that they could lie together forever after they were both dead. (Canterbury Cathedral may not last forever, but that doesn't seem to have deterred Edward.)
  
  Edward died in 1376, nearly 10 years before Joan did. Flying in the face of Harper's happy "we two together, forever" horseshit is that in Joan's will, she specified that she wished to be buried next to her first husband, Thomas Holland - the man she married in secret so many years before her marriage to Edward. And it was beside Thomas, not Edward, that Joan was laid to rest.
  
  Which left Edward lying alone in his tomb for two. And I've visited that tomb. It's a hell of a tomb. Which means that Thomas must have been a hell of a man.
• 
  Lady Jane Grey

  This book was pretty awful. It is a romance published in 1984 under the name "Sweet Passion's Pain" with a corresponding romance novel cover and was based very loosely on actual people. Then for whatever reason twenty years later it was repackaged with a new cover and new dimensions to give it legitimacy and marketed as historical fiction. I understand writing romance based on historical events and people just so long as the reader goes into it knowing it is a sort of parallel universe to what really happened and is more about the story than the facts. Monica McCarty does that amazingly well. I understand how for the author's story to work, some details might have to be fiddled around with. I also understand that there is a whole business side to the book world. This book is a wolf in sheep's clothing and an embarrassment to the historical fiction genre. I would have been more okay with the mass market from the 80s because that is where and how it belongs. That still would not have been a five or even four star book, possibly three at best. It was eye-roll inducing and I really did not care a bit about what happened. I was constantly zoning out, rereading what I had read while zoned out, and it not making any difference to the story.
  
  You know what? I'm spending way too much time complaining about this and I wasted like a week getting through it. This will soon not be wasting any bookshelf space either. Halfway through I thought I might keep it for the sake of the beautiful cover and/or loaning it out to anyone that would want to subject themselves to it. I know what it is like to know a book exists and needing to read it no matter how many bad things I've heard about it.
  
  Historical fiction authors: please, somebody write a book about Joan of Kent!!! This cannot be the standard!!!
• 
  Natasa

  The novel is full of 14th century Court intrigue, the back-story of the execution of Joan’s father, her rise to Duchess, plotting, friendship, love, betrayal, adventure, it’s all in there. Overall, a good read, but it was more a romance novel than a historical novel.
• 
  Sarah Mac

  This was originally an '84 Zebra romance, & if you've slogged through any really old Zeebs you'll recognize the style:** endless description of setting & clothes to drown the story in wallpaper background + tedious "As You Know, Bob" dialogue to assure readers that this is a Historical Romance set in a Past Era with Past Problems + lots of internal angst about star-crossed, googly-eyed Twu Wuv + huge time gaps featuring veeeeery slooooow actiooooon (<--plz imagine this spoken in slow motion).
  
  ...In short, boring as hell.
  
  Granted, this era has always shut down my higher brain function, whether from confusion or boredom or both together. But even so. I don't give a rat's ass about these people. Goodbye, book. I've got better things to read. (I'm also tempted to check my medievals for any other books set during the Edward II/Edward III/Black Prince period, because hot damn. I never like them, so why bother?)
  
  
  **IMO, Zebra didn't hit their stride until they started the Lovegram line in the late 80s/early 90s.
• 
  Erin

  This story focuses on Joan, Maid of Kent and Edward, the Black Prince( son of Edward III of England). While the chemistry between the two is electrifying, the story is drawn out to an incredibly slow pace. Edward III, unlike many of the other royals of England seems to have a really hard time getting his kids to marry. Prince Edward basically waits around fighting a bunch of wars in France and pining away for the Maid of Kent. In the author's note, Harper likens the romance between these two to that of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowes. Oh dear!
  As well, Joan is supposed to be bent on revenge for the death of her father and make the others pay( including King Edward III). It was a large plot hole that the character seemed to be stuck in for a long time and didn't interest me at all. Maybe it was because Joan just kept hopping into bed with Prince Edward, that I just didn't feel as if she HATED the royal family.
  
  
  Goodreads review 22/09/13
• 
  Susan

  I (mostly) truly enjoyed this book. Yes, a little fluffy. Yes, there were a lot of passages that described her flat stomach, violet eyes, rich curves, blah de blah. But there was a joy in this book that, despite the ups and downs of the characters' lives, kept me reading without a feeling of dread haunting each page. I hadn't realized, because I'm apparently not terribly bright, until I was a good way in, that the romantic lead, Edward, was Edward the Black Prince, whose likeness hangs in my dining room. Unlike many historical novels, this doesn't contain an author's note about what parts were fact and which were fiction, but it did pique my interest to read some more historically based works about Joan of Kent and Edward, which I suppose, is what good historical fiction should do. Also, I really enjoyed the many, many descriptions of the fleeting trends in medieval fashion. I tend to think of there being only one style of dress or hat for a period of several hundred years, so this was an interesting treat. I'll definitely read another of Harper's books.
• 
  Katie

  So this has been on my shelf for a while, but I hadn't realized until I started reading it that it was originally published in the 80's. You can tell. Definite consent issues here.
  
  But mostly I just didn't click with the writing. And I still don't have a good idea of what Joan's revenge plan really WAS or all the ins and outs of the past.
  
  Owned physical book 1/2 for the month
  Overall owned book 2/5 for the month
• 
  Lisa

  Originally published in May 1984 under the title Sweet Passion’s Pain, Karen Harper’s The First Princess of Wales is first and foremost a bodice ripper-style romance novel based somewhat loosely on the historical Joan of Kent and her marriage to Edward, the Black Prince. Although many aspects of Joan’s real life remain present, Harper picks and chooses what she wants to focus on and happily diverts entirely from the historical record to write what she presumably thinks is a better romance novel.
  
  I was never going to love this. I’m not a huge reader of romance novels and I prefer historical fiction to be as accurate as possible. Knowing what kind of novel this is, though, helped me brace for it and I hoped that I could enjoy it for what it was rather than what I would’ve preferred to read.
  
  So, did I like it for what it was?
  
  Nope.
  
  As people who follow me know, I’m a wee bit obsessed with the Black Prince and think he and Joan are One True Pairing goals. I don’t particularly care about her marriage to Thomas Holland – I find it the opposite of romantic when one partner is 12 (TWELVE) and the other 25 (TWENTY-FIVE) when they have a secret, clandestine marriage. So, hell yes, I’m ready to board an alternate reality where the Prince is Joan’s one true love and Holland is a mere blip on the radar. Except, yep, it’s full of manufactured drama and bodice-ripping ideas of consent (yes, Joan’s bodice gets ripped, yes there’s a no-no-yes rape scene) and I’m left going, “but my OTP…”
  
  To add to my sadness, the way the Prince was described was a complete turnoff for me – he’s a GIANT with MASSIVE MUSCLES and TAWNY HAIR and HUGE CHEST and BIG FINGERS. This is fine if you like that but it’s not true to the Prince (we know he was pretty much a beanpole - tall and thin - due to his surviving jupon) and all I could see were those ridiculously muscular men who look like their skin’s about to burst or a brick, both wearing a lion’s mane as a wig. But being able to see the romantic hero as attractive is kinda key to enjoying a romance novel and I couldn’t stand him as a person or find him physically appealing.
  
  Joan was more appealing with her VIOLET EYES and FLAT STOMACH and WHEAT-COLOURED HAIR and basic appearance of a Barbie doll. But it got repetitive and her character was pretty much “feisty idiot”. She decides that the ravings of her dying, hate-filled mother that Edward III did nothing to stop her father’s unjustified execution are the absolute truth and decides to get revenge on the family that’s treated her well by… I couldn’t quite work it out. Seducing their son whom she’s in love and lust with? Cue a lot of “I shall hate him and destroy but *heavy sigh* he’s so hot and masterful”. Seducing the king? Cue Joan getting all surprised Pikachu face when he actually tries to have sex with her and then the scene turns to rapey before she stops him by screaming about how he let her dad die and then he explains things but she still wants revenge! The real killers of her father (both historically and in the novel) don’t get one iota of her mad revenge plotting. And of course, there’s no real resolution for this plotline. Joan is apparently fine that Edward III did nothing to stop her dad being killed because the Prince is a real hottie.
  
  And yay, there were the repeated attempts to rape Joan because she’s so pretty, no men can control themselves. Yes, a lot of the early scenes between Joan and the Prince were flat-out rape or attempted rape. Luckily, I’d been warned so I was braced for it but UGH. And yes, there was a lot of “Joan needs to be tamed and the Prince is the only one who can” and UGH.
  
  The writing was… middling. Some parts were really cheesy and jarred, some parts were okay and flowed by. There’s a lot of description of Joan’s clothing which is neat at first (though I wondered if some of the colours were unrealistic) but becomes repetitive. And yes, we’re told ad nauseum about how she and the Prince are hotties.
  
  I won’t go into all the inaccuracies because I’d fill up the character limit on them alone. Harper obviously did research Joan – the facts about her father’s death are, if distorted and changed to make Edward III a target for Joan’s anger, basically true – but she discards a lot of things and basically writes whatever she wants to write without a care for the truth. And that’s fine. I mean, she was writing a bodice ripper, not a serious historical fiction novel – it’s only that this has been reissued with a lovely new cover, reading guide and synopsis that makes it seem like it’s a far more serious work than it is.
  
  And that’s the real problem. If people read this expecting a cheesy romance with questionable ideas of romance and consent, they know what they’re getting into. They may love that kind of novel and love this. If they expect a serious historical novel, then they’re going to be less than impressed. I doubt this was Harper’s fault but the publisher’s so I’m not knocking down the rating because of that (and as I said, I knew going in that cover was a lie).
  
  For me, I knew what I was getting into and I hoped I’d be able to enjoy it. Instead, I don’t find anything to praise it for besides “well, at the least the Prince didn’t kill puppies in this one?”
• 
  Marie Z Johansen

  I must surely be on a Karen Harper binge! After reading "The Queen's Governess" by Karen Harper last week I decided to read another or her titles, "The First Princess of Wales". I was not disappointed. Although this paperback, published n 2006, sports a hefty 624 pages I have finished it in several days of "bedtime" reading. I have never been a fan of romance novels but it appears that I must be becoming one! I remember when I managed bookstores that I would cast derisive looks at the Harlequin Romance series when they arrived to be shelved. Now here I am reading a book whose title was once "Sweet Passion's Pain"! arghhhh!
  
  
  This book tells the story, albeit, highly fictionalized, story of Joan of Kent (29 September 1328 –
  
  7 August 1385)- beloved of Edward, the 'black prince' of Wales15 June 1330 – 8 June 1376). Set during the tumultuous period when threat of war with France was always on the immediate horizon, the tale includes all of the "biggies": love, betrayal, seduction, intrigue, family feuds and war.
  
  
  I have read reviews of this book that say that it is "over-written"& "historically flawed". I can agree with both of the assessments to a degree. The book is written in a very easy to read style - there are no
  
  pedantic interpretations of history here - and I have read as real historical fiction. In that light I found this book to be an easy, delightful read - and yes, a romance at that. I do think that it offers a true flavor of the period although the hero and heroine are depicted rather as the quintessential lover's -as if Ms. Harper distilled the essence of what a romantic hero and heroine might be.
  
  
  Was this book worthy of any rewards? No. Was it worthy of a few idle hours of escape? Definitely! If your are looking for a truly historical account of Joan of Kent and her love Prince Edward, look to another venue - but for escapism and distraction I think this is a fine, most enjoyable journey of a read! Ms. Harper even postulates an interesting and amusing historical reason for the term "knights of the garter"!
• 
  Candace

  Loved it. History -yes, Romance- yes, based on real people-yes. I really think I should've been born a royal, I'm just saying. This book is about Joan, granddaughter of Edward I of England. She is sent to live at the court of Edward III, her cousin. Her first day there she meets Edward the Prince of Wales, although she doesn't know that is who he is. She is instantly smitten. It is full of intrigue, adventure, love, and loss. If you love historical fiction with some romance thrown in, you'll love it.
• 
  Amanda Kennedy

  By the rood! If I hear that phrase one more time I'm going to murder someone. Most likely the person who agreed to publish this awful, lengthy, boring book.
  
  This book is more terribly written romance than historical fiction. The characters are not well-researched, the history is barely expounded upon, and the main character is a complete and total waste of typeface. Do yourself a favor and skip this one.
• 
  Belinda

  5 stars - English hardcover - I have dyslexia - Thanks for the read Tilly -
  In a note book I wrote about this book : Great characters. Specialy Fiery-tempered Joan of Kent. This novel is go well written I pictured the complete novel in my head. And what a power lady. In mediëval times she was something. Aldo her story is not at all times bright and colorful she is full of live. 🦋🦋🦋
• 
  Caroline

  I honestly don't know what to think as historical fiction is one of my top favourite genres that are my usual go-to but this read more as a historical romance novel. I haven't read any books by this author before so I didn't know what to expect.
  
  I have heard of but didn't know much about Joan, Countess of Kent (29 September 1326/7 – 7 August 1385), known to history as The Fair Maid of Kent, was the mother of King Richard II of England, her son by her third husband, Edward the Black Prince, son and heir apparent of King Edward III so I was quite thoroughly looking forward to reading this exaggeration of history but there are few things I'm not okay with.
  
  I found myself skimming through it, especially at the end, as some parts dragged on quite abit and got quite repetitive with certain details the audience already knew from previous chapters, yeah fair enough, with the occasional reminders here and there but NOT ALL the time!!
  
  Like I mentioned above I haven't read or knew that much about these people and I knew that the author would take liberties for creative purposes especially when it came to their personalities and what their thought patterns might possibly be and how their decisions would affect the country, royal family and so forth. I hoped that the book would grab my attention but I ended up googling and learning their story and cross-checking the facts from the book and what I researched.
  
  Another thing that bothered me was that the WHOLE premise was Joan's motivations of revenge against the royal family due to the death of her father and making those in cahoots of the King who also played a role in her father's death and her anger and frustration that King Edward III did nothing to seek justice for her father's death angered her and .... it just hit a god damn wall and froze splat like Coyote and Roadrunner! Soooo frustrating!!!
  
  Like seriously? What was Joan's endgame? Ok, she was forced to marry a knight, she bore his children but alot of the time she toyed with the Black Prince's emotions and heartstrings and got pissed off when he did the same (two wrongs don't make a right!)
  
  Ok, sure, some of the Black Prince's behavior and when he sexually assaults the woman he claims to love (aka Joan) and pressures her into sleeping with him when he basically KIDNAPS her and takes her to a secluded cabin and Joan basically: "Will I, won't I, no I don't want this .... well, ok maybe I do" is just plain WRONG! NO means NO!!!
  
  And for yet, for some reason, Joan just kept jumping the sack with Prince Edward, that to me just basically erases the ENTIRE PREMISE and whole point of the book: REVENGE and just made me feel as if she really didn't HATE the royal family as much as she claimed considering her love/hate relationship with the Prince of Wales and her close friendship with Princess Isabella.
  
  Not only that, it was hard to cheer the main characters on when I found them extremely unlikable due to their personality and actions! I understand that these were the medieval ages and where women have very little to no agency or political power in their own right but to me, it just didn't sit right with me of what Joan of Kent would do in reality, but instead, she came across in the book as one dimensional, lovesick, immature and childish, stubborn and self-absorbed.
  
  I give this book a 1 out of 5 star rating others may enjoy the romance and normally I don't mind romance but I don't agree with or support abusive relationships and that was Edward and Joan in a nutshell, the both of them, just not my cup of tea!
• 
  Bonnie

  By the rood! When I began reading this book I wondered why there were so many references to Joan's violet eyes and flat stomach, and so much attention paid to the clothes she wore. I hopped onto Goodreads and learned from other reviews that this was not, in fact, historical fiction - it is a 1984 romance novel originally titled
  Sweet Passion's Pain. Then it all began to make sense.
  
  This is a historical romance in the vein of Anya Seton's
  Katherine and Jane Auel's
  The Clan of the Cave Bear. It is a mix of decently researched history on England and France in the 1300s (although as pointed out by other reviews, there are some major changes to fit the story that Harper wants to tell) and old school romance novel tropes.
  
  The romance is 0/10. Edward, the Black Prince, is one of those romance heroes who is supposed to be broodily attractive and whose "conquest" of (many, many) other women shows how desirable he is. He engages in brutal "wooing," with such romantic notions as:
  
  "Those light jesting kisses they had wagered at backgammon where he almost always won would be nothing to what she would give him tonight, willing or not.";
  
  "I ought to break your proud little neck for this trick, but I shall settle for a sweet taste of your body."; and
  
  "Tell me 'aye' or, so help me, I will force your compliance!"
  
  Edward is one of those nearly-rapist heroes that were so popular once upon a time (are they still?). This being a 1980s book, of course there are also several actual attempted rapes by other male characters (three!), including Edward's father (the king)!
  
  Joan of Kent is a perfect 1980s romantic heroine - fierce when that's attractive but stoic when that's more attractive and, of course, incredibly beautiful (every male who gets even a brief POV talks about how stunning she is, and the book talks about her violet eyes and flat stomach - even after two kids! - ceaselessly). She is repeatedly called a "little vixen" and other such monikers. She is not like other girls because she allegedly stands up to Edward - until she is overcome with lust for him and gives in. The book keeps trying to convince us that Joan is clever by having characters insist upon it, but then Joan's brilliant idea for revenge for her father's death is...flirt with Edward until he is wild with desire for her and then break his heart...and flirt with the king until she is alone with him so she can tell him she does not like him (but is still loyal to him as the king!). That will show 'em, Joan!
  
  Harper's take on the peasant rebellion is also uncomfortably classist - it is very much "but why would they be so unhappy when the nobles are so nice to them" view. And conveniently cuts out how the nobles indiscriminately killed peasants in retaliation. (Also - Justice for Vinette! I don't know what she did to deserve being this story's whipping boy except for being a peasant, but damn Harper did her dirty).
  
  And yet I got through all 600+ pages on audiobook. It was almost like a time capsule of a romance novel and was enjoyable in the way watching a cheesy 1980s movie that you would have hated at the time but can now appreciate due to nostalgia is enjoyable. I am also impressed with the length -they don't make doorstopper romances like this anymore (except perhaps
  Outlander).
• 
  Emily

  I am too much of a feminist to enjoy this book and the grooming, coercion, harassment, and abuse. Talk of "possession" and "taming" and "owning" and "chaining her to his bed" to keep her like some sex slave pet, but attempting to paint it as a positive, passionate desire and love affair is a big no for me.
• 
  Bookish Ally

  A tall, handsome warrior prince, star crossed lovers, a beautiful duchess and one of the great love stories of history. For every woman who secretly longs for a little romance—this one is for you.
• 
  Scottie

  This was so unbelievably boring and also it just wasn’t good
• 
  Aneca

  I was fortunate enough to receive a copy of this book from the author. I've been very curious about the Fair Maid of Kent after reading bits about her in other books and was quite happy to find a book where she is the main character.
  
  The daughter of a disgraced earl, she matched wits with a prince.
  
  It is the fourteenth century, the height of the Medieval Age, and at the court of King Edward III of England, chivalry is loudly praised while treachery runs rampant. When the lovely and high-spirited Joan of Kent is sent to this politically charged court, she is woefully unprepared for the underhanded maneuverings of her peers.
  
  Determined to increase the breadth of his rule, the king will use any means necessary to gain control of France—including manipulating his own son, Edward, Prince of Wales. Joan plots to become involved with the prince to scandalize the royal family, for she has learned they engineered her father's downfall and death. But what begins as a calculated strategy soon—to Joan's surprise—grows into love. When Joan learns that Edward returns her feelings, she is soon fighting her own, for how can she love the man that ruined her family? And, if she does, what will be the cost?
  
  It tells the story of Joan, starting as a young girl preparing to go to court, till her marriage to Edward, the Black Prince at 33 and covering her two previous marriages.
  
  I found this Joan an interesting character even if a bit too lively at times, too self assured for someone so young. As soon as she reaches Kind Edward II's court she becomes a favourite with Princess Isabella and Queen Philippa and she immediately catches the eye of Edward, The Black Prince. Joan's mother tells her on her deathbed that the king is responsible for the death of her father and Joan decides then and there that she will have her revenge.
  
  Despite that her attraction to the Prince grows and soon they are being noticed by others which leads the Queen to arrange a marriage for Joan. First she is betrothed to Thomas Holland. As that doesn’t seems to stop her and the prince the Queen in desperation marries her to another man. That will make for an interesting tangle and the Pope must be consulted to decide to which of them is she really married. We follow Joan's marriage to Thomas Holland and exile in France and her subsequent reunion with Edward that leads to their marriage after her husband dies.
  
  I did like reading the story but I have to confess that I regretted that some lack of historical detail to really make me feel like I was visiting the medieval world. I wanted to know more of Joan besides her attraction to Edward. I never thought Joan's first marriage to be of royal initiative but I'm sure things could have happened as described. The age of the characters also seems a bit off in the beginning but as they grow up it it's not noticeable anymore. It reads very well as a romantic story even if Edward is at times a bit too aggressive in his pursuit of Joan, there's a lot of melodrama going on with these two before they reach their happy ending.
• 
  Tanner

  Okay. So there is a lot to unpack with Karen Harper's novel about the Fair Maid of Kent. First off, the re-branding of the novel as historical fiction is somewhat (entirely) laughable. I absolutely love historical fiction and would say that it is my favorite genre. But "The First Princess of Wales," previously published as "Sweet Passion's Pain" is definitely a romance with a capital R.
  With no previous knowledge of this book, Karen Harper, or Joan of Kent, I went into the novel expecting to learn about Joan's life and pathway to being the first princess of Wales. However, it is entirely about her years long, tension-filled, passionate relationship with The Black Prince. And that is completely fine. As a Romance novel, I loved it. It has all the cringe-worthy, questionable elements that you get with a classic Romance novel. I did not want to put it down and finished it in three days. BUT, I am rather disappointed that the re-branding led me to believe I was getting something I was not.
  After a mere 2 minute Wikipedia search on Joan of Kent, it calls into question the entire integrity of the story. Hell, she was buried next to her first husband, Thomas Holland, in real life! Harper's version made it seem as though there was no one that could compare to the brooding Prince Edward, Thomas Holland be damned. I can definitely understand liberties being taken with historical fiction, especially dating back this far. Apparently, Holland and Joan married when she was only 12. I certainly understand pushing her age back to make it more palatable for modern readers, but the all of the romances with the three men in Joan's real life (she actually did marry Lord Salisbury!) were skewed to make a passionate tale of forbidden love between Joan and Edward seem like the end all, be all romance for Joan. According to my brief research, they did indeed love each other, but I am incredibly disappointed that this novel is being marketed today as historical fiction. I am hoping to find a more accurate account of Joan's life, as she seems like a fascinating historical figure.
  I would most certainly rate Harper's novel differently according to the genres it claims to represent. As a Romance, it is a solid 4 for me. Entertaining, unputdownable, tension filled...
  As historical fiction, which is how it was marketed to me, definitely a 1. Whoever picked the GORGEOUS cover for this novel deserves a medal, because there is no way I would have pinned this as a Romance. I've never experienced a situation like this with a novel. Here's to firsts for everything!
• 
  Rio (Lynne)

  1.5 stars. I thoroughly enjoyed the other 3 Harper novels I've read "
  The Last Boleyn
  , The Queen's Governess
  and The Irish Princess", so what went wrong with this one? I did a lot of skimming. I tried not to, but I just couldn't help it. I don't do well with books that have to describe every little detail. I don't mind the basics to set the scene, but I don't like repetition. You could literally skim 5 pages and you were still on the same scene. I really wanted to like this, which is why I skimmed torturously to the end. I haven't read about The Black Prince or Joan of Kent. Their story was full of drama and intrigue, so I kept hoping for the book to get my attention. I ended up googling and learning their story on my own. Since I enjoyed Harper's other books I hate to give her a negative review, but I have to be honest. Maybe it was the editor/publisher?
• 
  Jenna

  I was only vaguely familiar with the history of Joan, Fair Maid of Kent, so the title and the snippet on the back drew my attention. I've enjoyed Karen Harper's work in the past, particularly her Queen Elizabeth mysteries, but this was a decided contrast, reading much more like a romance novel than historical fiction.
  
  Joan herself isn't a particularly sympathetic character in my opinion, lurching from one crisis to another, often of her own making. She takes obstinacy to a whole new level, ignorance and blindness to a shocking height, and naïveté nearly to the point of stupid. Despite that, I appreciated her determination to reach independence, even if her methods were frequently far from wise or ideal.
  
  Despite that, the writing style kept my attention and the descriptions of the Plantagenet Court, several battles involved in the Hundred Years' War, and the characterizations of the various Plantagenets themselves were insightful. I enjoyed the book, and do recommend it... but be patient with Joan. It's well worth it for the ending.
• 
  Christie

  I tried to like this book because I have liked Karen Harper's books in the past, but I just could not. It was a struggle to finish. The historical accuracy is abysmal. I know when writing fiction some liberties with the historical record are expected, but these were just beyond acceptable. The main characters' ages were changed, as were the records of Joan's first two marriages and her children. Maybe some of it can be chalked up to the fact that the book was first written in 1984 and maybe more things came to light after the fact. The book was incredibly repetitive. Joan's motivations for revenge on the royal family never made sense and it seemed like she forgot about it for half the book anyway. The book seemed like a Harlequin romance with some inaccurate history thrown in to try to give it some legitimacy. It was a very disappointing read and I am angry with myself for sticking it out for 600+ pages.
• 
  Sarah W.

  I really wanted to like this novelization of the life of Joan of Kent, but the more I read the less I enjoyed this novel and the harder it was to finish. Joan and Edward stuck me as two-dimensional and under-developed characters. I also felt like Joan acted immaturely in many of her relations with Edward. In comparison to some of the other novels I have read about the Plantagenet family, The First Princess of Wales stacks up poorly.
• 
  Margaret Sankey

  Pretty good historical novel, in the style of Elizabeth Chadwick (that is, conforming to actual events, so someone's happy ending is approximately a couple of years before someone dies of dysentery), about Joan of Kent--from a branch of the Plantagenets disgraced in the aftermath of Edward II's deposition, twice married (once bigamously) before marrying Edward the Black Prince, who is presented sociopathic warts and all and being Queen Mother to Richard II.
• 
  Camille

  My problem with this book, beyond the annoying language (which I can forgive, considering the book is set in the 1300's) was that the outcome is telegraphed from approximately page 5 and then you have to read 600 pages of pure b.s. before the star crossed lovers get together. Blech!
• 
  Mimi

  The combination of the title and the horribly cheesy cover made this a book I tried to read without anyone knowing what I was reading.
  
  It ultimately got republished under another name, but it really doesn't hide that it is a historical romance, with an emphasis on the romance.
• 
  Elizabeth(The Book Whisperer)

  ah...couldn't do it either. I could't get into it.
• 
  Mary

  Overall an enjoyable read. I know it is fiction, but Ms. Harper could have made more of an attempt to stick to the known facts of these medieval lovers!