This book is split into two parts whereby the first is from the perspective of a lady in waiting and the second from the perspective of a fool/jester called Patch. I am very keen on stories relating to Richard III and there was more of him in the first part so I preferred that part.

I expected to thoroughly enjoy this book. Historical fiction? Check! The War of the Roses? Yes! Poor, misunderstood Richard III? What's not to love? Alas, I only moderately enjoyed this book, but I did become intimately familiar with the House of York and House of Lancaster family trees inside the front and back covers. Maybe if I had grown up with English history it would have been easier to keep track of the Dukes/Earls/Lords of Gloucester/Buckingham/Leicester, but my addled American brain had a hard time following the royal linneage in this detailed fictional account of the constant scheming and battling for the English throne in the 1400s.

Actually, I enjoyed the book's historical density, especially once I started keeping the "Pocket Guide to English Kings and Queens" within arm's reach while reading it. What irritated me was that Jarman tells the story of Richard III through three characters who really aren't all that interesting: the Maid, the Fool and the Man of Keen Sight. Why waste so much ink on these one-dimensional stereotypes when you've got Richard III to work with?

Fell really flat compared to the first book. Not sure how she could have gone to such a page turning first book to such a snoozefest second book, but the book completely lacked emotion. I was really looking forward to the wrapping up of the maid's tale, but it dragged on forever, with so little to draw you in, and the ending was sooooooo disappointing.

Also, random, but why do the two books look completely different? Different types of covers, even a different texture of paper. Huh? They seem to be the same edition.

The author obviously performed skilled research to create this story. Granted I am not a Richard the 111 historian, but everything seemed true and factual.

I had a few quibbles. One is why not give the characters names? That's right, neither the maiden/nun or the gentleman ever have names. This is odd because somewhere in the narrative another character would say the person's name, not call her or him "lady", "fellow", "friend" and on and on.

Patch the food is granted a name. He's special.

Another quibble is how too often the maiden's story is full of high hysteria. Perhaps the author wants to capture a young woman's edgy lust, but at times the screeching fouls the reading process.

But after I closed the book on the nun's tragic tale, I had tears in my eyes. When Jarman concentrates on crafting remorse and sorrow, she knifes the reader's heart.

I do not recommend this book for readers expecting a quick, easy read. If you aren't into history's dense weave, stay away.

I was interested and suprised to read a book that presents Richard III in a positive light. I became invested in the characters, specifically the main character, Richard's first lover, and the lush language used to evoke the events surrounding the War of the Roses. I recommend it to any who enjoy a good historical fiction.

Incidentally, the title is an excerpt from Shakespeare's The Life and Death of King Richard III (i.i.): "we speak no treason man; we say the king is wise and virtuous...". Because of the context of the quote, Richard III (or Gloucester at the time of this speech) is being "ironic" here, I leapt at reading this book. Thusly, I was surprised to find it presents Richard III in a positive light.

For a more sympathetic view of Richard, a much maligned historical figure, see the web site of The Richard III Society.

I have read better books on this subject, sorry Ms Hawley.