I was surprised by the aspects of the story that were good.

1. The main protagonist is a young Woman, who has qualified to be a Knight in spite of her reactionary father.  There are a number of run- ins between father and daughter, but the language and tone---given that girls were not permitted to be knights, though that is a conceit that has been heavily explored in modern popular literature---are convincing.

2. The vampire is also a woman, who is disguised as a visiting knight, at the outset.  The plot element of a 'dark knight' at a tourney ìs also quite common, so the only innovative device, here, is that it is a female, and a vampire. 

3. The other grown-ups here are well-spoken, though the language is modern.  The politics is moderate, though the young female knight is not only an ardent feminist, but also a 'socialist' according to conservatives of our day, because she urges her father to spend money to make the lives of the villagers easier.  But that's not a knight theme; the girl is anxious to make the village safer, from vampires, incidentally. 

There is one feature that I think detract from the story. 

The vampire is, as vampires often are, several centuries old.  But the woman is just a little more spry and affectionate and--- honestly--- youthful, that it strains the imagination.  A being more than a century old, would normally be just a little more measured in their speech.  The style of speech is the main tool an author has to paint a picture of a character, more than descriptive words, descriptions of clothing, and things like that (though they're important, no doubt).

Then, apart from a couple of mechanical errors--- which seem inevitable--- it is a nice first installment of a multi- volume work. 

K.H.B