In this “vibrant medieval mystery” (The New York Times).
Lie! What the NYT said was "vibrant tapestry of medieval life." Close, but no cigar, and now we know the book blurb is a lie from the off! In a time when women were possessions, we're expected to believe that "forensics expert Adelia is hired by King Henry II to solve a series of murders in Cambridge. Can she unravel the truth before the killer strikes again?" Who cares? And why would the king give a shit about some murders in Cambridge when he's fully occupied trying to fight wars and rule his unruly children? Henry 2.0 didn't even trust his own wife despite her delivering him eight kids - in her thirties yet, and including five heirs (those would be the sons, because the daughters, being female, were fit only for marriage alliances, recall). He's sure as hell not going to hire a woman to do anything important except spread her legs for him. Given that there were only about 2,000 people living in Cambridge in those years, it hardly required anyone other than the local authority to police the place! Yawn. Since Norman died a decade ago, she's not going to get a penny of the sale price from this book.
