Pet peeves in historical romance

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
So I've been reading historical romance for some time now, and although it's my favorite sub-genre, there are certain tropes I'm thoroughly tired of seeing. I started jotting these down, and before I knew it, there was an entire essay. Without further ado...

The hero

1. The hero sets out to seduce/ruin a woman because of something her male relative did. Though while I hate this revenge plot, I wouldn’t mind reading one where the hero sets out to seduce a man because of something the man’s female relative did.

2. The scarred hero who’s either brooding or angry, but is always a recluse. When the hero has plenty of money, a title, a family who supports him, etc., and none of that matters to him because of his poor scarred face, I always want to tell him to get over his First World Problems.

3. The hero is attracted to one of his employees or servants. Bonus points if the skewed power dynamics are completely ignored here.

4. The hero becomes titled through some bizarre turn of events, e.g. his father and two older brothers all die in the same accident. Bonus points if he neither grieves for them overmuch nor is concerned about some horrible fate befalling him as well. Even more bonus points if no one suspects him of being behind the accident.

5. The hero keeps something about his past a secret from the heroine until about the two-thirds point of the book, which is when she learns the truth in the most devastating way so a separation can occur.

6. The hero sneers at debutantes, because he considers them all simpering fools who only want to catch a husband. As opposed to going to university, getting jobs, and embarking on careers, I suppose. Bonus points if he thinks the heroine is “not like the other girls”.

7. The hero owns a notorious gaming-hell.

Not only has this been done over and over again, but it often makes me wonder if the hero has any empathy at all for people with gambling addictions.

8. The hero considers making the well-bred and virginal heroine his mistress.

9. The hero refuses to fall in love or get married because his parents had a loveless or abusive marriage, therefore marriage = abuse. His counterpart is the hero who refuses to fall in love or get married because his parents had a loving marriage, so when one of them died, the other was heartbroken, therefore marriage = heartbreak.

Either way, the hero’s parents’ marriage has permanently damaged him. The heroine, though, can never use her parents’ marriage as an excuse for why she refuses to love or marry. If she did, she’d be emotionally unbalanced (and rather than being the heroine, she’d be the awful first wife).

10. The hero shows no awareness of the fact that pregnancy and labor were difficult and dangerous for women.

He has unprotected sex with women (if they get pregnant, they can deal). Or he tells the heroine he wants to have half a dozen babies with her. Easy to say when he’s not the person undergoing all the risks to health and life in the process.

The heroine


1. The heroine is determined never to marry, but she wants to experience the pleasures of the flesh just once. Bonus points if she seems completely unaware of pregnancy and venereal disease (which is why she picks a man who’s been with dozens of women already).

Then again, maybe it wouldn’t be romantic if she availed herself of a sheath, nor would any self-respecting rake wear one.

2. The heroine has unprotected sex over and over again with the hero, but when he asks her to marry him, she refuses because he hasn’t said the L word. Bonus points if she’s pregnant by then, but she would rather raise an illegitimate child solo in Victorian England than marry a man who protects her, confides in her and gives her multiple orgasms, yet who has not said the L word.

Also bonus points if the hero thinks of her as intelligent.

3. The heroine rescues underprivileged children, battered wives or ex-prostitutes. Bonus points if she can’t support all her rescuees and has to rely on the hero for funds.

There’s nothing wrong with rescuing underprivileged children, battered wives or ex-prostitutes, but it’s been done so often that it’s predictable, and I would prefer to see the battered wives or ex-prostitutes rescuing themselves. I’d also prefer not to read any more books where the ex-prostitutes act like sorority sisters giving the heroine a sexy makeover and cheering her on in her romance with the hero.

4. The destitute heroine decides to be a sex worker or to auction off her virginity. Thankfully her first client is the wealthy hero, who is of course not just free of venereal disease, but so moved by her that he saves her from a potential lifetime of degradation. This is Pretty Woman in Regency England, except with Julia Roberts’s character being a virgin.

Bonus points if the hero doesn’t give a thought to other prostitutes (the ones who aren’t young, pretty and innocent), or if the story doesn't examine what it says about him that he’d patronize sex workers or virgin auctions in the first place. A good subversion of this trope is Mary Balogh’s A Precious Jewel.

5. The young, gently bred heroine goes everywhere she wants without a chaperone. Bonus points if the author tries to lampshade this by someone pointing it out so the heroine’s father can say confidently that he trusts the girl and that she can take care of herself (which isn’t the point).

One of the things I dislike about this trope, other than the potential danger to the heroine, is that it’s sometimes used to show how egalitarian she is. Rather than staying in the rarefied drawing rooms of the ton, she rubs shoulders with the common people! But not only does this ignore class distinctions, which were significant in the past, it also doesn’t take into account the fact that ignoring class distinctions could be worse for the socially inferior group than for the privileged heroine. If something happened to her, what would the consequences be for any working-class people involved?

6. The heroine sets out to ruin herself so that her parents will stop trying to push her into marriage. Bonus points if ruin is treated as a spot of temporary embarrassment with no ill-effects whatsoever.

There’s a reason Elizabeth Bennet was devastated when her younger sister ran off with a man who wasn’t going to marry her.

7. The heroine is spirited and/or principled… until she meets the hero, at which point she’s willing to compromise her values and sacrifice her needs for his sake.

8. The heroine looks down on women who want to marry titled men, considering such women superficial. When she meets the hero, she’s struck so speechless by his good looks that she doesn’t object when he speaks to her without being formally introduced, addresses her by her given name, and so on.

9. The heroine refuses to marry the hero because she’s barren, and he deserves better than such an abject failure at womanhood. I’d give bonus points if she was blissfully pregnant in the last chapter or the epilogue, but then every book which used this trope would get them.

A related trope is the heroine who suffers a miscarriage, because the moment this happens, I know the author will make certain she has a replacement baby by the end of the book. It’s not the baby that makes me roll my eyes; it’s the predictability. I don’t want to feel that I’ve read this story a dozen times already.

10. The heroine’s maid is her friend.

I firmly believe that after the end of A Little Princess, Sara and Becky continued to be close friends despite Becky being Sara’s maid. But they’d both endured a great deal together. In romances where the heroine’s maid is her confidante and cheerleader, there’s rarely if ever a shared history of this sort to show why they’re friends.

And at the end of the day, the heroine’s maid is going to help the heroine undress, brush her hair and hang up her clothes, before the maid goes to her own room in the servants’ quarters to get some sleep. Longbourn, a retelling of Pride and Prejudice from a servant’s perspective, shows just how difficult and tiring the lives of maids could be, so if one of them is little more than feisty, cheery emotional support for the heroine, that stretches my suspension of disbelief.

Plots

1. The hero and heroine, very much in love, are separated and don’t expect to see each other again. He has sex with dozens of women. She stays chaste. If she has sex at all, it’s because she was forced into marriage with someone else, and the sex is devoid of consent or pleasure. Bonus points if the hero later questions her on what she did during their separation and is jealous at the possibility that she might have been with another man.

2. The hero and heroine enter into marriage with the agreement that they will separate after a year and get an annulment.

It wasn’t easy to get an annulment in the past. Also, what would happen to the heroine after that, reputation-wise? If she wanted to remarry in the future, how would this work out?

3. The hero knows the heroine doesn’t want to meet him, so he bribes her servants to tell him wherever she goes, allowing their paths to accidentally-on-purpose cross.

In any other genre, this is called stalking.

4. The widowed hero hires the heroine as a governess for his children, who are so unruly that Maria von Trapp couldn’t do anything with them. Naturally, the heroine wins their hearts. Bonus points if they swiftly suggest she be their new mother.

One of the many reasons I loved Mary Balogh’s The Secret Pearl is because the hero’s six-year-old daughter is deeply attached to her mother, his first wife. And even after the mother dies, the daughter doesn’t immediately fixate on the heroine as her new mama. In fact, when the hero brings up the prospect of remarriage to the heroine (a year after his wife’s death), the daughter is a little upset about it at first, which struck me as very realistic. I could tell that the daughter cared about the heroine, but a lot of children don’t welcome their step-parents with open arms.

ETA : Just thought of another one.

5. The hero's mama or grandmama keeps nagging him to marry, or tries to introduce him to potential brides. Therefore, he does something either weak (hides out in his country estate) or stupid (pretends to be a rake, marries the first woman to cross his path, marries a woman who'll be completely unsuitable, persuades a woman to pretend they're engaged, etc).

It never seems to occur to him to simply tell his mama or grandmama to stop. And the reason I can't sympathize with his spinelessness is because my aunt once tried playing matchmaker with me. She offered to introduce me to a "good Christian man" looking for a "God-fearing woman with whom he could raise a family". I asked my aunt, "Did you know I'm an atheist?" and she left me alone from that moment on.

I'm a woman raised in a conservative family and a culture which emphasized respect and obedience towards one's elders. So if I could stand up for myself, an earl or a duke can damn well do the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I've managed to read a number of historicals that don't integrate these plot points, but I'm somewhat selective.

I'll add one I used to run across fairly often when I was younger but haven't seen as much lately (maybe because I'm selective): a story set in the antebellum or Civil-War-Era south where the family has slaves but somehow they are always portrayed simply as servants who are always well treated and love their owners, and the more vicious forms of racism (though lots of the more condescending or "benign" forms are well in evidence, along with lots of cliches about slaves) are only practiced by the villains. I remember one where the heroine had a loyal Black retainer who was essentially her bodyguard and henchman who followed her around like a dog with never the slightest sign of resentment or exasperation. At the end of the book, he ended up in a rockem, sockem robot-like fight with the villain's loyal Black retainer.

I like stories with women who manage to create a niche for themselves in their patriarchal times and who ultimately find a hero who is secure enough not to be threatened by a woman who is as smart as he is.

I also like stories that turn some of the traditional plot points on their head. I read one recently where the man liked B and D and was the sub, though it was a bit annoying that the author invoked a past trauma as a possible partial explanation for his kink (it wasn't clear he hadn't always enjoyed being a sub, but it was there as an amplifying factor), but at least he wasn't "cured" by the heroine's magic vagina. In fact, she enjoyed the dom role in bed. I've also run across a couple of novels where the man was the virgin and the woman more experienced. I mean, I know there was a huge double standard back then, and even now, but it's nice to see that subverted sometimes. I read one recently too where they were both quite inexperienced.

I've only run across one where the woman feared getting pregnant because of nearly dying from hard pregnancies and miscarriages in the past, and the man respected that rather than convincing her she would somehow be okay having lots of babies with him.

I've also enjoyed a series where the women were scientific or writers or some other thing deemed improper. Some people sneer and say such women didn't exist in the 19th century or before, or at best were doomed to life as spinsters, but this is not true. Real history does have quite a few examples.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,641
Reaction score
6,510
Location
west coast, canada
Well, one response to your post, which I love and agree with, is that I've gone and bought 'Longbourn' on Kindle.
It's a book I probably never have known about without you, but just reading the opening sample on The River tells me that it's the kind of book I will enjoy.
Poor 'Polly', forcibly turned from 'Mary' because the daughter of the family had first dibs on the name.

Thank you for the recommendation.
 
Last edited:

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I firmly believe that after the end of A Little Princess, Sara and Becky continued to be close friends despite Becky being Sara’s maid. But they’d both endured a great deal together. In romances where the heroine’s maid is her confidante and cheerleader, there’s rarely if ever a shared history of this sort to show why they’re friends.

This. And in fact, servants were more often anything but in love with their employers. And class divides were taken pretty seriously.

I read a novel recently that was probably more realistic, if a bit disturbing by modern standards. The FMC's maid was basically a piece of furniture who accompanied her silently when she needed a chaperone and faded into the background. I don't think her name was ever given and she said more than "Yes, Miss" throughout. It probably is realistic that a protagonist who sees herself as progressive and rebellious in so many ways still doesn't question her societal assumptions in another.
 

Pterofan

Trust me, I'm a writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,272
Location
Pennsylvania Dutch Country
Website
www.pterosnest.blogspot.com
I'm a reader of romances, though not necessarily historical romances, but I know where you're coming from. In the SFF genre, romance and otherwise, I'm struck by the number of alien/fantasy worlds where women still aren't equal to men when it comes to financial or societal standing, and are expected to have a man/male/mate by the end of the book/series. And apparently high heels for women is a universal concept, spanning all of time, space and dimensions. But I digress.

For historicals, lazy writing and a lack of in-depth research might explain some of these tropes, but reader expectations (or what publishers think readers want) could also be to blame. I can't give a citation because this was decades ago, maybe the '90s, but I remember reading an article by an author on the difficulty of writing accurate historical romances in the post-Women's Lib era. Publishers wanted heroines living in the 1700s-1800s to be feisty, independent and have jobs, and be attracted to men who could easily share their feelings and treated women as equals, because that was the world publishers imagined their readership lived in (or wanted to). Readers don't want a history lesson; they want to read about people just like themselves, or their perfect selves, just in a different time and place, but still comforting and familiar. Publishers want to sell books to these readers, so if logic and historical fact have to go out the window, so be it.

If you're seeing the same cliches so often, it's because they're selling, and as long as they're making money they'll continue to be written and published. It'll probably take a couple of best-selling historically-accurate romances to shake things up, or a writer/publisher willing to take a chance. I for one would love to see the book described in #1 under "The Hero." M/M historical writers, start your engines!

By the way, I'm sure you meant "gaming hall" under #7. Although that conjours up intriguing possibilities. Maybe Ready Player One could use a sequel...
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
I've managed to read a number of historicals that don't integrate these plot points, but I'm somewhat selective.
Some time back, I downloaded a bunch of freebie historicals from Amazon. Let's just say I got exactly what I paid for.
I'll add one I used to run across fairly often when I was younger but haven't seen as much lately (maybe because I'm selective): a story set in the antebellum or Civil-War-Era south where the family has slaves but somehow they are always portrayed simply as servants who are always well treated and love their owners, and the more vicious forms of racism (though lots of the more condescending or "benign" forms are well in evidence, along with lots of cliches about slaves) are only practiced by the villains.
I haven't read much HR set in the States. I did enjoy Lorraine Heath's Texas Glory and Always to Remember, and I love Pamela Morsi's Americana romances, but, as you said, there's the racism factor. In fact, Heath's Texas Destiny was re-reviewed at All About Romance more recently, and although it got an A when it first came out, the second reviewer couldn't overlook the fact that the heroine's family once owned a plantation (and didn't express regret for this, or concern for the slaves).
I remember one where the heroine had a loyal Black retainer who was essentially her bodyguard and henchman who followed her around like a dog with never the slightest sign of resentment or exasperation. At the end of the book, he ended up in a rockem, sockem robot-like fight with the villain's loyal Black retainer.
Ew.

It's like the showdown at the end of Django Unchained, except with the black characters having no agency or personalities of their own.
I like stories with women who manage to create a niche for themselves in their patriarchal times and who ultimately find a hero who is secure enough not to be threatened by a woman who is as smart as he is.
Yes, this. I like it when stories show that the heroine has been raised in a patriarchal society, rather than being a modern-day woman visiting a Ren Faire, but where the heroine still has her own thoughts and plans.
I've also run across a couple of novels where the man was the virgin and the woman more experienced. I mean, I know there was a huge double standard back then, and even now, but it's nice to see that subverted sometimes. I read one recently too where they were both quite inexperienced.
Two of Pamela Morsi's novels have a virgin hero and a more experienced heroine. In Simple Jess, the hero is a virgin because he's developmentally delayed, and in Wild Oats, the hero (a mortician, one of the most unusual romance-hero professions I've come across) wants to lose it to an older woman he finds irresistible.

Personally, while I like experienced women, I'm fine with the heroine being a virgin, as long as this isn't either fetishized or treated as a sign of morality.
I've only run across one where the woman feared getting pregnant because of nearly dying from hard pregnancies and miscarriages in the past, and the man respected that rather than convincing her she would somehow be okay having lots of babies with him.
The Countess Conspiracy? I was so glad that Courtney Milan didn't make the problem magically go away. I like escapism, but that would be a bridge too far for me.

There's another HR series where one book featured a horribly abusive hero who manipulates and rapes the heroine into falling for him in a Stockholm Syndrome way. And as if the author realized that yes, she'd created a psychopath who brainwashed a woman into becoming his doormat, whenever this couple pops up in the following books, the woman is pregnant. They eventually stopped at eight kids, maybe to show that this is the most loving and fertile marriage ever, or maybe because few women can escape with eight children in tow.
 
Last edited:

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
In the SFF genre, romance and otherwise, I'm struck by the number of alien/fantasy worlds where women still aren't equal to men when it comes to financial or societal standing, and are expected to have a man/male/mate by the end of the book/series.

It drove me nuts in paranormal romance when the woman was "claimed" because the man's inner wolf or bear took one sniff of her and recognized her as his bondmate or packmate.

I want the heroine to be with the hero because he's the best possible choice for her. Not because he's her only choice.

For historicals, lazy writing and a lack of in-depth research might explain some of these tropes, but reader expectations (or what publishers think readers want) could also be to blame. I can't give a citation because this was decades ago, maybe the '90s, but I remember reading an article by an author on the difficulty of writing accurate historical romances in the post-Women's Lib era. Publishers wanted heroines living in the 1700s-1800s to be feisty, independent and have jobs, and be attracted to men who could easily share their feelings and treated women as equals, because that was the world publishers imagined their readership lived in (or wanted to). Readers don't want a history lesson; they want to read about people just like themselves, or their perfect selves, just in a different time and place, but still comforting and familiar.

This! (Bolding mine)

And historical men treating women like equals... this is great, but I'd rather authors not be heavy-handed about it. I recently picked up an HR where the antagonist was a boring and chauvinistic man the heroine's family expected her to marry. He told her that he didn't believe women should have the right to vote.

The moment I read this, I knew the hero would support women's rights. Sure enough, a little later the heroine asks him whether he thinks women should have the right to vote, and he says yes.

It's so predictable, and there's no nuance about it.

If you're seeing the same cliches so often, it's because they're selling, and as long as they're making money they'll continue to be written and published.

And to be fair, one person's done-to-death cliche is another person's favorite trope. I love marriages of convenience, women who have to work for a living, and Beauty and the Beast (as long as the beast doesn't brood or pity himself or "spend his days smashing porcelain", which turns the story into Beauty and the Toddler's Tantrums).

It'll probably take a couple of best-selling historically-accurate romances to shake things up, or a writer/publisher willing to take a chance. I for one would love to see the book described in #1 under "The Hero." M/M historical writers, start your engines!

Hey, hey, I thought of it first!

Though on a serious note, I do want to write a romance with a revenge plot, but it'll be one where the man carrying out the revenge is not the hero, because what's heroic about hurting an innocent woman? Instead, it would be about the woman picking up the pieces after the scheme is carried out (and making it clear that she's not a glutton for punishment).

By the way, I'm sure you meant "gaming hall" under #7.

No, gambling houses are actually called "gaming hells" in romance. I don't know if people in Regency or Victorian England referred to them that way, though.
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
Well, one response to your post, which I love and agree with, is that I've gone and bought 'Longbourn' on Kindle.

Thanks, and I hope you enjoy Longbourn. Besides its depth of historical detail and atmosphere, it's great to see how the events in P&P affect the servants. For instance, when Mr. Collins visits, they do their best to make everything perfect for him, because he'll be master in the house when Mr. Bennet turns up his toes. It felt very realistic.
 

Pterofan

Trust me, I'm a writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,272
Location
Pennsylvania Dutch Country
Website
www.pterosnest.blogspot.com
No, gambling houses are actually called "gaming hells" in romance. I don't know if people in Regency or Victorian England referred to them that way, though.

Thanks for the correction. Told you I didn't read much historical romance.

As someone who's struggled through periodic bouts of video game addiction, the actual term is far more accurate anyway.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I'm a reader of romances, though not necessarily historical romances, but I know where you're coming from. In the SFF genre, romance and otherwise, I'm struck by the number of alien/fantasy worlds where women still aren't equal to men when it comes to financial or societal standing, and are expected to have a man/male/mate by the end of the book/series. And apparently high heels for women is a universal concept, spanning all of time, space and dimensions. But I digress.

OMG, I hate that too. The history of high heels is interesting, actually, and they were originally for men.

The things I really notice, though, are futuristic societies where women do everything men do, from commanding star ships to fighting as marines to running businesses, to conducting research, to being janitors for dockside dives. But somehow the patriarchal nuclear family is still the norm. The women take their husband's names, wear longer, more elaborate hairstyles (ya, in space.), and are the only ones wearing makeup. It's especially noticeable in TV shows and movies, but you find it in books too, including books not written that long ago. Sometimes you see other ideas explored, like Cherryh's matrilineal spacer clans, where women had kids on their family ships and kids became part of their mother's clan, but it's not as common as one would expect from SF.

For historicals, lazy writing and a lack of in-depth research might explain some of these tropes, but reader expectations (or what publishers think readers want) could also be to blame. I can't give a citation because this was decades ago, maybe the '90s, but I remember reading an article by an author on the difficulty of writing accurate historical romances in the post-Women's Lib era. Publishers wanted heroines living in the 1700s-1800s to be feisty, independent and have jobs, and be attracted to men who could easily share their feelings and treated women as equals, because that was the world publishers imagined their readership lived in (or wanted to).

I don't think anyone here was complaining here about that, really. I personally prefer stories about women who overcame some of the obstacles of their time and managed to do adventurous things and still find love. They existed exist, even back then. Heck, Louisa May Alcott wrote about such a character in the 19th century. I think readers generally want protagonists to have agency, though some of the tropes in the OP mentioned tropes with passive or dishrag FMCs.

But a realistic awareness of the risks and potential costs of being outrageous, adventurous, sexually liberated, or simply different is often downplayed.
 
Last edited:

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,661
Reaction score
7,354
Location
Wash., D.C. area
Not unique to romance at all, but my biggest peeve any time it happens is when either a real historical figure or a character created by another author is more than an incidental character. To me, it feels like the author is trying too hard to sell the story based on the connection, and not on the story itself. In most cases, the stories would have been excellent even without the connection.

I've wracked my brain trying to think of an example that worked for me, and all I can come up with are biopics. Why I would pay $15 to see the Harriet Tubman movie and love it while I wouldn't pay $3 to read the on-sale Kindle version taking the same historical liberties is beyond me, but there it is.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Not unique to romance at all, but my biggest peeve any time it happens is when either a real historical figure or a character created by another author is more than an incidental character. To me, it feels like the author is trying too hard to sell the story based on the connection, and not on the story itself. In most cases, the stories would have been excellent even without the connection.

I've wracked my brain trying to think of an example that worked for me, and all I can come up with are biopics. Why I would pay $15 to see the Harriet Tubman movie and love it while I wouldn't pay $3 to read the on-sale Kindle version taking the same historical liberties is beyond me, but there it is.

I've enjoyed some partially fictionalized biographies, as long as they aren't distorting what really happened.

But maybe the reason the biopics and TV shows appeal to you more is they don't delve into the character's heads in the same way novels do? A novel told from a completely objective viewpoint is possible, but not what most readers want or expect these days. As soon as the writer starts putting thoughts in a historical figure's head, it can start to feel less authentic. But movies and TV are generally completely objective, only relying on visual depictions of a character's actions. Of course there is still speculation, there, as we don't have access to what real people did every moment of every day, but maybe it doesn't seem as speculative?
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
But a realistic awareness of the risks and potential costs of being outrageous, adventurous, sexually liberated, or simply different is often downplayed.

I'd really like to see more of this awareness. Characters shouldn't act as though they know they're in a novel that ends happily, with the author spreading a safety net below them.
 

Sonya Heaney

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
565
Reaction score
85
Location
Canberra
Coming back to read the whole thread in a minute, but I'll just put this here: the duke hero who has to marry by (next month or whatever) or he'll lose his title. A lot of the big publishers have put out books with that plotline recently. That's. Not. How. The. Aristocracy. Works.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,641
Reaction score
6,510
Location
west coast, canada
No, but they don't care about reality - all they know is that there have been successful movies about a rich guy who has to marry or be disinherited, and they figure that 'duke' is just code for 'English rich guy'.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,641
Reaction score
6,510
Location
west coast, canada
No, gambling houses are actually called "gaming hells" in romance. I don't know if people in Regency or Victorian England referred to them that way, though.

Thanks for the correction. Told you I didn't read much historical romance.

As someone who's struggled through periodic bouts of video game addiction, the actual term is far more accurate anyway.
I immediately thought of Vegas - hot outside, temperature controlled inside, no natural light so you don't realize that time is passing, free food and drink, and no obvious way out. It's like Satan is experimenting - or, the government:
it would make a heck of a prison, really. Don't care what they do, as long as they never leave.
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
Coming back to read the whole thread in a minute, but I'll just put this here: the duke hero who has to marry by (next month or whatever) or he'll lose his title. A lot of the big publishers have put out books with that plotline recently. That's. Not. How. The. Aristocracy. Works.

I haven't encountered that trope often enough to make me hate it, but yeah, I have heard of it, and it's ridiculous. As K. J. Charles points out in her article on the topic, if a title can be passed down to anyone, the system of primogeniture might as well cease to exist.

And for me, this was one of the interesting things about the War of Five Kings in A Song of Ice and Fire. Both Stannis and Renly know their older brother didn't leave any legitimate biological children, but in that case, who is his heir? Stannis believes it's him, by right of law, but Renly crowns himself king as well, arguing that he has the bigger army and is more charismatic into the bargain. As this chapter analysis shows, there's a problem with Renly's reasoning.

Renly’s attack on the principle of primogeniture is deeply destabilizing – he has the most troops now, but there’s no guarantee that his son, or his grandson, or his great-grandson would, turning every single turnover of the crown into a civil war since under Renly armed strength would be the only legitimating force.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,641
Reaction score
6,510
Location
west coast, canada
I think you're right about the 'distancing' effect of movies. They show what people are doing, but not what they are thinking. So, essentially, real people are just scenery, like the rest of the set.
I think this is why so many people complain about movies made from books, but if they haven't read the book beforehand, they like the movie just fine. They are unaware of the levels they might have missed.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Coming back to read the whole thread in a minute, but I'll just put this here: the duke hero who has to marry by (next month or whatever) or he'll lose his title. A lot of the big publishers have put out books with that plotline recently. That's. Not. How. The. Aristocracy. Works.

I've run across this, but it's usually not regarding the inheritance of the actual title by the oldest son but with a younger son who may be given a sum of money, an allowance, or a particular property while the father is still alive, or via the will. I always assumed titled men had more flexibility in terms of providing their sons with allowances or with bequeathing specific money and properties on their younger children. Could not noble or wealthy fathers cut off a child's allowance, or refuse to leave a given business or property to a younger son if that son does not please him?

I've wondered about about men prior to the 20th century who were not nobility but they owned land that was passed down (like a country squire or landed gentry--I assume they were required to follow primogeniture too). But what about rich people who were not "upper class" at all, but extremely rich commoners (upper middle class but perhaps as rich as some nobles) who owned businesses and properties. Did they have more flexibility than the peerage in how they leave their money to their children? Could a wealthy common business or property owner have disinherited his oldest son in favor of a younger one by not leaving the family business or home to him? Or to put the question more succinctly, did primogeniture only apply to titled nobility?

One minor peeve I have is how many brides seem to be wearing white for their weddings before Queen Victoria made it fashionable (but still only for the wealthiest of families).
 
Last edited:

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
I've run across this, but it's usually not regarding the inheritance of the actual title by the oldest son but with a younger son who may be given a sum of money, an allowance, or a particular property while the father is still alive, or via the will. I always assumed titled men had more flexibility in terms of providing their sons with allowances or with bequeathing specific money and properties on their younger children. Could not noble or wealthy fathers cut off a child's allowance, or refuse to leave a given business or property to a younger son if that son does not please him?

I think so, unless the property is entailed. But I'd love to hear from anyone with more experience on the topic.

I've wondered about about men prior to the 20th century who were not nobility but they owned land that was passed down (like a country squire or landed gentry--I assume they were required to follow primogeniture too).

Philippa Gregory's Wideacre is about a woman who wants more than anything else to run her family estate, but whose younger (and inept) brother is going to inherit it because he's the son. It's also clear that the estate is entailed, so that if the brother dies without having a legitimate son, the estate will go to their male cousin.

The family isn't nobility, though; their father is called "the Squire".

But what about rich people who were not "upper class" at all, but extremely rich commoners (upper middle class but perhaps as rich as some nobles) who owned businesses and properties. Did they have more flexibility than the peerage in how they leave their money to their children? Could a wealthy common business or property owner have disinherited his oldest son in favor of a younger one by not leaving the family business or home to him? Or to put the question more succinctly, did primogeniture only apply to titled nobility?

This makes more sense to me, but unfortunately for authors wanting to use the "must be married before 30 or you lose everything" plot, titles in titles sell. So you need the story to be called The Duke's Dilemma or The Marquess's Marriage Bargain. I've seen this happen when the character wasn't even a duke, or when he didn't become titled at all during the story because his father was still alive at the end.
 
Last edited:

Lil

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
867
Reaction score
155
Location
New York
There are plenty of historical romances out there where the "historical" means nothing more than that the heroine wears a long dress. But as one who reads lots of historicals (and writes them), there are quite a few good ones out there that make good use of the history.
 

Animad345

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
782
Reaction score
95
Location
UK
This is such an interesting thread!

I've been reading The Essex Serpent by Sarah Perry. It's not technically classed in the romance genre, but the romantic relationship does take centre stage. I think a lot of readers have had difficulty with some of the dialogue, which they feel may be inaccurate to the time period, but I wouldn't be expert enough to tell!

I presume this must be a major pet peeve for those knowledgeable enough (unlike me) to recognise when certain words/phrases are clearly out of place for the time period, in historical romance novels?
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,116
Reaction score
10,870
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I've often run across inappropriate word use in historical novels taking place in the UK, but the characters speak more like modern Americans. There's a translation principle at work, and it seems publishers releasing even contemporary books in the US are more inclined to take even novels written by British authors and changing words and expressions to American norms than they once did.

I'm not saying there can't be some adaptation or translation to more modern speech styles, but it knocks me out in historical when characters are using words or turns of phrase that simply positively couldn't have existed at that time. For example, the word "escalate" didn't exist prior to the invention of the "escalator," and no one prior to the end of the 19th century would have thought that "adrenaline was pumping through their veins" (and I suspect that colloquialism actually arose even later than the discovery of epinephrine and its marketing as a drug called adrenaline).
 

Marian Perera

starting over
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
14,351
Reaction score
4,646
Location
Heaven is a place on earth called Toronto.
Website
www.marianperera.com
I presume this must be a major pet peeve for those knowledgeable enough (unlike me) to recognise when certain words/phrases are clearly out of place for the time period, in historical romance novels?

I'm far from experienced when it comes to historical accuracy, but yeah, I notice these problems sometimes. I once reviewed a romance where an earl tells his wife, “Period. End of discussion.” Apparently no one involved in the production of this book was aware that in Britain, it’s called a full stop, not a period.
 

Marissa D

Scribe of the girls in the basement
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
3,071
Reaction score
365
Location
New England but hankering for the old one
Website
www.marissadoyle.com
One minor peeve I have is how many brides seem to be wearing white for their weddings before Queen Victoria made it fashionable (but still only for the wealthiest of families).

Victoria might have made it fashionable, but I have multiple fashion prints from earlier decades (as far back as the late teens and through the 1820s and early 1830s) that show white wedding dresses. So I tend to give a pass on that one.