The Way Back on Wednesday: A Few Historical Characters I Miss
originally published on March 23, 2009
One of the perennial favorite topics around AAR is the lack of historical accuracy in today’s historical romances.
Still, there is what AAR readers want and then what the rest of the reading world wants – at least according to some publishers. I’m hearing from certain writer friends who are, in turn, hearing it from their publishers that readers these days don’t especially care about historical accuracy – not to mention, of course, the belief that readers only want books set in 19th century England.
We are told over and over – and over and over again – that AAR readers aren’t the norm. And, perhaps, that’s true. But I for one find it impossible to escape into a historical romance (key word these days is escape) that is so broad-brushed it feels as if it could take place at any time.
Still, while I’m hardly the Regency police, there is one definite accuracy bug up my ass: I deplore the fact that some of the newer authors these days don’t seem to make any effort to make their dialogue feel even remotely authentic.
One “nasty kids” or “her ladyship felt a bit down” and I am mentally totally out of the story. Totally.
But, on the other hand, since the majority of my knowledge of the society and mores of 19th century England was largely gleaned from fiction, I’m simply not going to catch some of the errors that those who are more schooled in the period do. If the dances and underwear aren’t accurately depicted in an historical novel, you won’t know it from me.
But – and this is a major but – I think I did learn a lot from those historical romances I grew up on.
When I was working my way through the Georgette canon and branching out into books by Laura London, Anne Stuart, Marion Chesney, and Joan Wolfe, I got a great feel for the Regency, including the true characters of the period – characters most readers who’ve only been reading romance for the past 10 years or so might never have met.
And I think that’s sad.
When was the last time Beau Brummell was featured in a book? His influence on society was enormous and his end tragic, the stuff of which great drama is made. With his ironic wit and outsized personality, he was an amusing foil for many a hero in the books I used to love. (And, incidentally, heroes always followed the Beau’s dictates for gentleman’s dress and favored black and white for evening and simple attire during the day.)
Maria Fitzherbert
was a Catholic widow who actually married the younger Prince Regent in a civil ceremony, though the marriage was never recognized under English law. I learned about Maria’s sad tale in a novel – and, sadly I can’t remember who the author was – in which the heroine was a friend of the young widow.
And what about the Prince Regent himself? Handsome in his younger years, corpulent in the latter, society revolved around him and his every whim, yet I can’t recall the last time I came across a book in which something as simple as a ball or reception at Carlton House was a part of the plot.
In those books I remember so fondly, the names of the Gunning sisters were invoked by every hopeful Mama scheming to marry her daughter into the highest levels of society. In the late 18th century, the two actresses actually married into the nobility – a duke, no less, followed by a marquess for Elizabeth Gunning pictured here. (I learned when checking out the accuracy of my memories on Wikipedia that her first husband, the Duke of Hamilton, wished to marry her the first evening they met. Clearly, she did something very, very well!)
Right along with the the warm lemonade served at Almack’s go the tales of Lady Jersey who, along with her fellow patronesses, could make or break any young woman desiring to make her mark in the ton. The undisputed queen of society, heroes arriving after the strict 11 pm cut off for admittance into Almack’s hallowed rooms were required to cajole Lady Sarah who, of course, was always suitably charmed. (And now that I think about it, is Almack’s also making fewer and fewer appearances in historical romance novels? Do they think modern readers know nothing about the period?)
And then there’s Lord Byron. His affair with Lady Caroline Lamb occured in 1812 and her breakdown in full view of society was the stuff of which legendary scandals are made. But, once again, I simply can’t recall the last time I read a book even featuring a heroine reading Lord Byron’s poetry.
To me, including, even in the lightest possible way, these real people helped me imagine the place and time in which the book was set as someplace different from my ordinary world. Sadly, today history is so broad-brushed and modern dialogue so prevalent in far too many books that it often doesn’t even feel as if I’m reading a historical romance.
And without the “historical” part, it all starts to seem pretty bland to me.
-Sandy AAR
I like to read about “ordinary” people these days, so these historical figures would not appear. Indeed, the last I can recall would be in a Barbara Cartland! Nowadays I prefer author’s such as KJ Charles, or other periods or places of history
I confess that I am very ignorant of history in general, so I don’t have the knowledge to judge historical accuracy unless it’s really egregious. My high school history courses were pathetic, and as an econ major I had only 1 history course. Reading the above article describing these actual Regency personalities really intrigued me. I would love to read more about them. Does anyone have any recommendations? I also wonder how much these people would have mingled? How big was the aristocracy? Did everyone know everyone, as often portrayed in HR? I always have so many questions as I read but don’t take the time to find the answers, nor do I know where to look. I also had a vision of a TV series a la The Crown or The Tudors but called The Regency featuring these characters and more. If well done, it could be brilliant. Get going, you writers out there!
Becky – I do have a list of interesting books that I have offered here before. The best way for you to get is to email Caz. I will send it to her (it’s a Word document) and she in turn can send it to you by email.
Caz – you kindly did this before for me so would be very grateful if you would pass the list to Becky. Ta ever so!!
Oh, that is so nice of you, Elaine. I really appreciate it. I will connect with Caz and get it from her. Thank you!
Hope you find something interesting to read!
If you’re in the mood for something humorous, I strongly recommend watching the third season of “Blackadder” where Rowan Atkinson plays the butler to Hugh Laurie’s Prince Regent. It’s hilarious and wears its history lightly, but also touches on some major Regency themes—the Romantic poets, Lord Nelson, the Duke of Wellington, Samuel Johnson, George III’s insanity, and the Prince Regent’s self-absorption and money-squandering ways. All the episodes have Austen-esque titles like “Amy and Amiability.” Hilarious and highly recommended.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackadder_the_Third
That sounds like fun— I will see if I can stream it here. Thanks!
I love “Blackadder”…..thanks for the reminder and the link!
I agree–if the language sounds at all contemporary, it spoils the book for me. if you want to write romance and you don’t want to do the homework, write contemporaries. I feel that these lazy authors are helping to contribute to the disdain of the romance genre. We don’t need that. I feel that one of the ways we can protest–as readers–is to leave negative reviews for any author who uses language that would have never been used in Regency/Victorian/medieval England, or whatever.
I’ve been reading romances long enough now (approaching 30 years) to recall past discussions in which readers were pleased to see stories that broke away from the London Season / ton / Almack’s standard because there were so many such books. So, at least one reason for the changes may be market swings or the search for less used settings.
In terms of history learned in school, I recalled very little when I started reading romances. Most of my present knowledge of history is from Great Courses I’ve listened to since reading romances sparked my interest in history (at least history 70 courses, though a few of those are mixes of history and other subjects).
Actual historical figures help show the setting. In contrast, I know I have read nominally historical romances where I couldn’t even be sure what CENTURY they were supposed to be set in, much less what year.
I don’t know if it’s because I read a lot of authors who included a lot of history like Phillippa Carr and others when I was younger but I definitely think there has been a market swing away from that in romance.
It’s a shame that everything has to be based on trends. It would be nice to see more variety. I pretty much learned the history of Early modern England and part of Europe from Phillipa Carr as a teen disguised in her “Daughters of England” series.
I’m sure you’re aware that Philippa Carr also published books as Jean Plaidy and Victoria Holt among other names. Because of my English childhood, I was pretty conversant with English history (and I still recall my first year in America—6th grade—having a teacher who was horrified that I had no idea who Francis Scott Key was), but I found her historical books a comforting reinforcement and expansion of what I already knew. I loved the works of Margaret Campbell Barnes too. Unlike Carr/Plaidy, Barnes loved Henry VIII and twisted her Tudor stories into pretzels in order to avoid making Henry too much of a bad guy. Plaidy was troubled by no such qualms and made Henry almost psychopathic in his awful behavior.
Yes! I read her under all her pseudonyms. Most people were familiar with only Victoria Holt but I read it all. I still have a bunch of her books I bought in hardcover way back in the “olden days” of the 80’s.
Thanks to her I knew about everything from the Luddites to the fact that what we called “gypsies” here were really the “Romany”. While her stuff isn’t sexy enough for today’s audiences she wrote some great stories.
I still maintain I learned more history from reading Jean Plaidy than I ever learned in history lessons in school!
Doesn’t C. S. Harris have the Countess Lieven appear in one of the Sebastian St. Cyr books? I think it’s mentioned that she’s smarter than her husband the ambassador. The Prince Regent and the political machinations of the early Regency figure prominently but I don’t remember any mention of Sebastian (or Hero) attending Almacks. Then again, this is a mystery series rather than a true HR.
She does, and I think some other actual historical figures appear in the series, too – one early story involves an investigation surrounding a theft from the Prince of Wales – but they’re generally background or secondary characters and are seamlessly incorporated into the novel.
There was one with William Franklin (Ben Franklin’s estranged son).
Teresa/Tracy Grant is another like Proctor writing historical mysteries with romantic elements who does a good job incorporating historical figures. For example, Vienna Waltz (Congress of Vienna).
Jo Beverley was good at this, too. I remember one of her books (maybe from the Malloren series, so Georgian rather than Regency) included the Chevalier d’Éon who is an interesting figure to read up on.
When I think of a Regency novel I think of most of those people listed above along with Almacks etc. Probably it’s because the first “Regency romances” I read were Barbara Cartland’s and apart from being known for being “inspired” by Heyer and her works Cartland actually had a very good grasp on history. “Prinny”, Beau Brummell and others are frequently mentioned in her books and Almacks was the goal of every young Miss in the books.
I do think strict historical accuracy is becoming a harder and harder sell to the masses now.
I see a real dichotomy amongst a lot of younger woman on YouTube and other social media.
You have one group that are passionately committed to (mostly) 100% accurate historical recreation like Bernadette Banner and others who hand-sew their garments or use period accurate vintage sewing machines for late 19th century clothes as well as only natural cloth and thread and even sewing techniques utilized in that era. They analyze the accuracy of costume in period films down to the structure of the stays and if the garments are inspired by extant clothing that is 10 years too early or too late.
The other group is the vast majority of young people who “loved” The Vikings, or Bridgerton or Reign (oh heavens, Reign….shudder) where history was often re-written (or in Reign’s case obliterated) and costumes were “creative” rather than accurate. In Reign’s case the clothes were often modern designer gowns or Renaissance fair costumes mixed with “festival” clothing like dangly forehead jewels in attempt to make everything “feel” modern and approachable. The Queen’s retinue looked like a bunch of social media influencers or Kardashian confidants.
I suspect the latter group is the group that represents far more people. Ones who want more spangles, sparkles, wallpaper backgrounds and nice, sanitary “modern” looking and sounding heroines. After all these are the stories that have been pitched to them as “history”.
I did not watch The Bridgertons, but I recently read an article about the anachronistic corset-lacing scene. Regency clothing was not restrictive the way it was in the later 19th-century and because Regency dresses usually had empire (high) waists, wearing a corset around the body’s natural waistline wouldn’t have made sense anyway. I assume most HR contains some anachronism—in speech, outlook, clothing, social customs, class interaction, etc.—but good writers find ways to include enough accurate information so that knowledgeable readers aren’t put off by things that are definitely not of the era.
Yes people who do historical recreation get particularly livid when “corset” are confused with “stays” and when the wrong undergarments are shown.
There’s a recent trend (I will blame on Pirates of The Caribbean) where every kind of female undergarment is decried as oppressive torture when some really were probably no more restrictive or uncomfortable than an underwire bra is now.
Working class women wore stays to do all kinds of physical labor through the ages.
Bridgerton, like many shows wanted to make the corsets look “sexier” by omitting the unsexy chemise (like a full nightgown/slip ) women wore under it.
If you want to see (an almost 100%) accurate depiction of (wealthy) Regency era clothes right down to the chemise and stays the most recent movie adaptation of Emma does a stellar job, both with men and women.
I’m not sure how I feel about including real historical figures in romances. It can add to the feel of the story, but I have serious problems when an author chooses to have their fictional characters all but tripping over the real people. I have, in the past, read books where it seemed like the fictional characters couldn’t walk down the street without encountering a famous historical person. But that could be me.
I forget where I read it years ago but an author did an article on cliches in romance novels and how she would list out what she expected to find in one before she read it and was almost always correct.
If it was Elizabethan a young William Shakespeare would show up for sure, often before he was “famous”.
If it was set in the 19th century south there would be a riverboat, and a riverboat gambler who wore a fancy vest.
I remember laughing about it at the time because it was 100% true, at least then. I think if you are going to have a historical person appear it must be organic and not pop up like a “Special Guest Star” used to on 70’s TV.
In “Flowers From The Storm” the (Prince Regent I believe? ) shows up towards the end for a very specific reason, to show how powerful and influential the hero really is/was and to add strength to the hero’s plan to make himself invulnerable from being sent back to the asylum. It’s not just a walk on cameo, it’s part of an intricate plot.
chrisreader, Thanks for that FFTS note. The Prince Regent was accompanied by the Duke of Wellington for the double emphasis. Loved that scene.
I forgot about the The Duke Of Wellington!
I love that book, no matter how many times I re-read it I still get anxious during it because I want it to work out so badly. Now that’s great writing!
I do sometimes feel this way. It seems as though when these elements are included in more recent works, they are included with no thought, just stuffed clumsily into the package. When it happens, it needs to be organic and more deftly woven into the story, not forced. This is often what separates the really good from the mediocre.
I heartily agree with DiscoDollyDeb’s comment:
That would drive me nuts as well! Thankfully, the better authors are able to incorporation real life historical figures into their books in a way that makes sense and isn’t at all obtrusive. Stella Riley does it superbly in her books set during the English Civil War, and as mentioned upthread, so does C.S Harris in her St. Cyr Mysteries. I’ve read lots of others in HR, too, although the “real person cameo” does seem to be falling by the wayside these days.
Historical (in)accuracy, a subject dear to my heart! Two points I’d like to mention:
People really don’t know much history and the entertainment shows that purport to be “historical” seem to get more and more outlandish every day.
I really believe people could pick up more about what Medieval life looked like from Game Of Thrones (which is a fantasy) than some other “historical” series. At least they let things look dirty and gritty.
I’ll try not to rant too much here, but I think that’s a big cultural problem for how history is treated these days in general- and it’s spilling over into entertainment. Yes, I think it’s good to acknowledge how far our species has come in regard to both social and technological progress. But at the same time, I am alarmed that it has become increasingly unfashionable- or even downright controversial- to also acknowledge the glories of the ancient world that existed alongside the ugliness.
Think about it. Most of the Colosseum is still standing today. What an impressive feat of engineering! The Romans also had plumbing, public toilets, fast food, centrally heated baths, international trade, gorgeous frescoes, and more. True, there were also slaves, blood sports, oppression based on sex and other factors, wars, and general barbarism. But what is with history classes and literature today that they can’t seem to handle the dichotomy of an oppressive society (by today’s standards) that could also be quite extraordinary? Moreover, it seems like a total waste for the Twitterati to get their collective panties in a bunch over stuff that happened centuries ago versus the problems that plague our world today. Yet nobody seems to criticize contemporary billionaire romances with any significant vitriol. But an HR hero of his time and place? OMG, what a sexist, racist pig!
As a student of history I can say in pretty much every time period, in pretty much every civilization, some, if not many, many people were subjugated, repressed, victimized- you name it. Whether it was because of gender, class, religion, ethnicity, nationality, preferences- just fill in the blank.
Whether most people will agree or not, societies now are probably the “nicest” they have ever been. I’m not saying they are perfect, and many would say they aren’t even great, but I will debate anyone who says they aren’t the fairest so far in history.
When one looks at history it isn’t necessary to glorify every culture or civilization but we should acknowledge the achievements and inventions that paved the way for later generations.
People in Scandinavia and Anglo-Saxon England sitting around a “Law rock” to determine judgments for crimes led to our modern court system. Roman and Greek “democracy” inspired centuries of governments and ideas of what was possible. Sure it was only for privileged, male citizens- but it created the example.
John of Salisbury famously said:
“We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours.”
Modern societies may have expanded and revolutionized what democracy, fairness and inclusion means but we have to remember these ideas didn’t form in a vacuum. It took centuries upon centuries to get here, building on what came before. It’s not wrong to look back on what was good and give it credit.
Beautifully stated.
In Mary Balogh’s earlier books, young ladies fresh to London for their season were always excited to gain admission to Almack’s or to watch fireworks (?) at Vauxhall Gardens. I don’t read much HR by anyone these days, but it does seem that Almack’s, among other fixtures of the ton, does not play much of a part in recent Regencies.
I haven’t read all that much HR over the last couple of years either, DDD, but I think you’re right.
I think there has also been a shift to more “Austen” inspired novels where the heroines don’t aspire to go to Almacks and have a “silly sister” or relative who wants to make her coming out but the heroine is a “sensible” blue stocking, crusader etc. who frowns on such things.
I’ve always been a big crusader for education and female equality but I love a fancy frock as well. No reason you can’t like both. If I were a young lady at the time I would for sure want some lemonade and waltzes at Almacks. Color me shallow.
chrisreader, I agree with you totally! I consider myself a feminist, yet I can enjoy the stories which take place during the times when the men in the culture dominated everything (wait–isn’t that true now???). Besides, what I really love in these historicals is that despite the conventions of the plot, the heroines always prove stronger than the heroes. Wasn’t Evie strong enough to tame St. Vincent? What about Jane Eyre vs. Rochester? Pride and Prejudice, anyone?
Absolutely, there is obviously something timeless and universal in the spirit of these heroines that so many women today can relate to.]
We may not all be living through the struggles and prejudices of the 19th century but we surely have enough of our own to make us sympathize with these plights.
And if a nice gown or two works it’s way in, so much the better. My work deals with trying to help the less privileged every day, but I certainly don’t wrap myself in sackcloth and ashes while doing it.
How interesting – this post could have been written today and all the points it makes would still be perfectly valid – plus I suspect we could add a few to it!
My thoughts EXACTLY!
Great topic for discussion. There are many characters from history who in and of themselves have stories far more exciting than any HR you care to read. I read biographies regularly and there have been some of all of the persons mentioned in the blog that I have read at one time or another. I wonder if it is ignorance and indifference on the part of the authors, publishers or readers that is to blame for the lack of these people appearing in HR. I was educated a long time ago now and history was so exciting for me. I was taught about everything from the neolithic peoples to the events of the current day. I wonder if that’s how it’s still taught? I get the feeling from what I read in the media that at least in the UK the curriculum in history sticks to the Tudors and WWII fascism (and now other rather woke subjects) and that’s about it. How very sad. British historian and academic Dominic Sandbrook is bringing out a series of books about historical events that he hopes will energise the young to learn more by finding history and those who populate it exciting and interesting whilst trying not to use those well used 20:20 hindsight spectacles that seem to be in constant use these days when looking at past events. Good for him!!!
DOMINIC SANDBROOK: My quest to teach Britain’s children about the heroes of history | Daily Mail Online
The National Curriculum in England is a straight-jacket designed by the Tory government and is certainly not ‘rather woke’.
As the mum of two daughters who have both studied history recently, yes, the GCSE curriculum is quite narrow but then there’s no way to squeeze everything in in just 2 years – although in the 3 years between them doing the subject there were changes in the syllabus in an attempt to broaden it. My eldest – soon to have her MA in history/heritage – was disappointed because her history GCSE was ALL 20th century history and she had to wait until A level to study her real love, which is Early Modern (for her A level, it was the Tudors) – the trade off was that the other half of the syllabus was on the Cold War. But by the time my other daughter did history GCSE, it has been broadened to include the Norman Conquest and a few other key points (which I can’t remember) and also there was a thematic topic, which in this case was a kind of “medicine through the ages”. The pre-exam years topics are – or can be – quite varied, but the biggest problem, as with pretty much everything in schools these days, is that so many kids don’t see the point of learning about “fings wot append so long ago. “. Even when I was doing supply and took history classes, that argument came up – just as “I int never goin ta France so why do I avter learn French?” There’s so little inquisitiveness or enjoyment of learning new things in today’s schools, and it’s very troubling. Which is a tangent – but yes, I suppose living in a country that boasts so much history that could be taught in schools, there has to be some cherry picking – although I do have to wonder about some of the cherries that are picked!
When I was in school (pre-college) if I had a nickel for every time we studied Ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome (which I all loved) I’d have a lot of nickels.
American history was The Pilgrims, the Revolution, bit of Presidential history, skip to the Civil War. I was in my junior year of high school before anything outside those few eras were covered.
“”Lynne Connolly, well I’ve just got to say that having read two of you books I really believe it when you say that historical accuracy is important to you.””
What a nice thing to say, thank you!
I do believe in making the history as real as possible, without overwhelming the story, but I think that comes from a lifelong passion! It’s a delight to find out new stuff, even if it never ends up in the books.
I do too. I love medievals and over the years they have been harder to find over the years. This is sad because it seems that the only settling that the big publishers will allow is 19th century England. Readers are starting to say they want some other settings. My best example is I ordered some books from Amazon and one of them was sold out and they had to order more of that title. The book was The Leagcy and the setting was Reformation Germany (early 1500’s) and it was so popular that Amazon had to order more. This proves that quite a few readers wanted something else because this book that came from a small publisher (Medalion Press) and it was selling so well that there was a need to get more of them. I occasionly want a Regency, but not a steady diet of nothing else. Main reasons are a good number of the books aren’t accurate (not even close in many cases) are so simlar that I can not tell the difference between one author or another and many of them have so many awkward sentances that it makes it hard to read, and plotlines that require such an extreme supension of belief that I have a very hard time getting into story and I have in many cases I have stoped trying! There is a glut of too many so-so Regenices and hardly anything else. The only big publisher that does publish medievals regularly is Harlequin and it seems that they are the only ones that are asking what their readers want. I was a part of the mail order club and even after I cancled it because I was moving for Graduate school they sent surveys and if you sent it back you were entered in contest of some sort. I filled out a number of them and one did ask what setting did we want and I checked off Medieval and other. It seems that many agreed with me because there have been a lot more of the other settings like Carribean and others that I did like. So it seems when readers are asked they say that they want more than just 19th century England. I hope that publishers reilize this because they are are going have to attract the next generation of readers and the books that are in shelves these days are not as good as the golden years which were 1988- 1998 and many of the books that are published today would have recived rejection letters back then because everybody’s standards were higher it seems, but authors had more freedom to write the book they wanted and as long it was a good book it was published and the market was allowed to decide whether they wanted it or not. Now it seems that a Historical author wants a long term career with most big publishers she almost has to write a write a Regency and the ones who do not will not get a second contract because her books are not selling well enough. I have seem at least 3 authors who books were not set in 19th century England who released 2-3 books then nothing else because they lost their contract and did not get a second one and that means that I have lost an author who books I would buy if I was given the chance, but publisher has decided that this author’s books are not worth enough top them, while some Regencies that sound like train wrecks (I am basing this on some of the reviews I have seen on this site) those authors manage to get second contracts even if the books are not really that good. While the non-Regency author who books may be much better does not get the the second contract because they can not see a career for the author and do not want to try. The happened because the mid-list is gone for the most part (Harlequin does have a version of it with the serises lines that allow author authors who do sell well to move into single title releases) this means that authors are told to write what the market wants and that seems to Regencies all the time even if it not the best time period for an author voice. This is why the Historical Market is in so much trouble and that why the publishers need toi take a reall hard look at what… Read more »
“…- not to mention, of course, the belief that readers only want books set in 19th century England.”
Personally, I prefer Medieval historicals and I have a very difficult time finding them. I usually end up reading several Regency period, just because they are so plentiful and I prefer that to contemporary. But my first love is Medieval. Since I am fairly new to romance (10 years or so) I find myself reading a lot of books that are not newly released. I realized this when I tried to take the AAR 2008 readers poll and found that I had only read 3 romance books that were published in 2008!
<>
For me, part of the point of Sandy’s post was not that one can’t FIND romance novels that feature real historical persons or a genuine historical feel, but that those elements are not as common in RECENTLY PUBLISHED historicals. For instance, the Mary Jo Putney title mentioned in a post above was published in 1996. The Carla Kelly book mentioned (Mrs. McVinnie’s London Season) has a 1990 publication date.
Maybe it’s just me, but as a romance reader, I very definitely get the sense that historicals from the late 80s through the 90s had a very different “”feel”” than those published in the last, say, 5 or 6 years. (Just as those written in the 70s and early 80s had a different feel than those published 10-15 years later.) Given a preference, I’m almost always going to root around in a historical author’s 20th-century backlist than try one of the wallpaper offerings hitting the shelves for the first time today.
I’m going to try Tasha Alexander in the near future, Tinabelle. She comes so highly recommended by fellow Deanna Raybourn fans that I’m really optimistic.
And thanks for the info, Donna. I really don’t know much about that era.
AAR Sandy said… “”I think it’s challenging for authors when you pick a period featuring dress that modern readers don’t like. The paint and powder of the Georgian era is an issue for me.””
That’s why I chose *late* Georgian era, Sandy… by 1786 most men had given up wigs – though the older generation still wore them – most young Englishwomen did not paint and men certainly didn’t. Things did not change overnight from paint, wigs and powder to the natural look of the Regency, it was an evolution.
I did a page on my new website devoted to the Georgian era, since that’s when my new Lady Anne series is set: http://www.donnaleasimpson.com/GeorgianEra.html
I have to agree that there are a lot of “”wallpaper historicals”” out there. And since I read mostly historicals, I come across a lot of these. I can enjoy a wallpaper if it is well-written and the characters well-developed, but I prefer a more well-researched story that incorporates more historical detail, thinking, events, and people into the plot. As a result, I read a lot of backlists of many of the authors already mentioned like Putney, Chase, and Beverley.
Several other authors writing accurate historical romance are Diana Gabaldon, Marsha Canham, Susan Carroll, Deanna Raybourn, Tasha Alexander, and C.S. Harris. With this last bunch, there is do doubt in your mind when and where their stories take place, and history is smoothly woven into the fabric of the plot, setting, and characters. If you haven’t read these authors and crave true historical fiction, I would highly recommend you check them out.
Beau Brummell is a secondary character in Carla Kelly’s “”Mrs McVinnie’s London Season”” and, as usual, she uses this actual historical character skillfully. I liked the book a lot, and even though it’s OOP it should be relatively easy to find and not too expensive online.
As for accuracy, as others have mentioned, I don’t want or need a textbook but I do want to feel that I’m reading an historical and not a contemporary with long dresses.
Lynne Connolly, well I’ve just got to say that having read two of you books I really believe it when you say that historical accuracy is important to you. In fact one of your earlier books was so well written with such real historical flavor that I actually enjoyed reading for scene and setting MORE then the actual story, which isn;t to be taken as a negative, because I really enjoyed the that.
RSmith, it’s tough out there these days in the historical romance arena! But there are shining lights.
Robin B, I love, love, love the Fallen Angels series. I think it’s one of the very best series of all time.
Marcella, you’ve got three great authors to enjoy there.
RobinB, thanks for the recommendation. I did read one (badly) translated book by MJP and managed to get a reprint of Angel Rogue. I’ll try to find more now, though it will have to be through Amazon and the likes, because I live in Denmark at the moment.
AAR Sandy, I just bought a book by Sherry Thomas, an author I haven’t read before. And I have most of Elizabeth Hoyt’s books – all thanks to recommendations on AAR! Joanna Bourne is on my list for the next time I raid an online bookstore…
Marcella, in addition to Jo Beverley and Loretta Chase, another author who has featured real historical characters in her 18th-19th century British historicals is Mary Jo Putney. The Duke of Wellington makes a couple of appearances in “”Shattered Rainbows””, a volume in Putney’s “”Fallen Angels”” series. He sort of had to be in the book, since part of the story is set during the Battle of Waterloo! At any rate, if your local used book store has it, you might want to check it out; HOWEVER. . .it is part of a series, and not the first volume, so. . .
I agree with Sandy and others who have posted here–as a former history major and a librarian, I cringe when I read a historical novel (romance or otherwise) and someone uses terms or slang that is so obviously contemporary. I just finished reading “”Addicted””, a book in the historical “”romantica”” genre, that would have been a lot better if the author hadn’t inserted some contemporary-sounding dialogue on a number of occasions! (Almost posted before noting the author’s name–Charlotte Featherstone.)
It should not matter whether the publisher thinks readers want historical accuracy or not. A writer and publisher should have enough pride in their products to make sure an historical novel doesn’t contain anachronisms. I am not an historian. Much of what I know of history I gained from reading fiction. And if I am learning from something I want it to be accurate. I don’t want a novel that reads like a textbook, but I don’t want people, inventions, and modern phrases where they don’t belong either. If I am reading a book that is promoted as historical (not fantasy) I should be able to trust the factual content.
As far as the appearance of historical figures go, I don’t need them to make personal appearances, but there are times when I feel they should at least be mentioned as part of the background to give the story the right feel. It’s strange to read a regency set in London during the season, with the heroine attending balls and routs and whatever – and Almacks is never even mentioned – not even a comment that she couldn’t get vouchers.
marcella, I am a big Chase fan and I think she provides wonderful context for all her stories.
Donna, I think it’s challenging for authors when you pick a period featuring dress that modern readers don’t like. The paint and powder of the Georgian era is an issue for me. Though, of course, I was just fine with it when Heyer did it. It’s all in the execution — and, I think, not rubbing reader’s noses in it over and over.
Lynn C, I certainly haven’t given up on historical romance, though I am far picker than ever. But then there is Sherry Thomas and Loretta Chase and Joanna Bourne and Elizabeth Hoyt — reasons to hope, all of them.
wilaful, I, too, am a proud Heyer fan, but I’ve read books featuring historical characters that didn’t seem like pale imitations to me. It takes a skilled author but then again, it takes a skilled author to write a good historical romance.
idb, I think this is the mantra from publishers today: Readers want historically set (19th century England, please) romances featuring lots of ballroom scenes. Sadly, I don’t think it gets much deeper than that.
Lynn, I especially love (not!) Regencyworld-set books in which the author doesn’t even provide a date. Prominent examples include the last few Madeleine Hunter books I read. The one I reviewed I took a guess as to time from the reviewer of a previous book in the series who I hope had more clue than me.
>>Romance readers aren’t stupid, but they have more tolerance than most. It’s a shame that that tolerance is abused so often.
I very much agree with this. I don’t know many people who want romance novels to read like history texts, but a sense of setting would be nice. One can have a light romp in a realistic Regency/Colonial/whatever setting, and it’s still fun as well as feeling somehow more satisfying than a trip to flimsy, wallpaper Regencyworld. I find that I connect more deeply with characters who seem real to me, and it’s hard for a character to seem real to me when he or she exists in a generic setting that has little depth or flavor to it. I’ve noticed in both historical and paranormal books that it’s difficult to have compelling emotional reality where there is only superficial and inconsistent worldbuilding.
I read lots of historical fiction(mostly Jean Plaidy and Norah Lofts) and romance growing up, and I actually learned a lot of history from those books. There are some exceptions out there on the market, but I do find myself missing the historical characters and references that I used to see. Nowadays, I often have to flip to the front page of the book to see when and where the author claims the action is taking place because otherwise I would have no idea.
It’s not true about readers wanted less accurate historicals – that’s just the publisher interpretation of a statement like “”the story is really important.”” Of course it is but that doesn’t mean you can’t keep it accurate.
Many modern historical romances just read – thin. So the story isn’t that involving anyway.
I do try to keep up the level of accuracy in the historicals I write, and my books are set in the mid-Georgian era. Sales are good, so somebody out there likes them.
But I’m finding many historical reads, even from the previously reliable Harlequin/Mills and Boons to be thinly written and inaccurate, or just too vague about the era they’re set in.
What is wrong in making a historical accurate? Why not, while you’re at it, make the setting a bit more vibrant, a bit more interesting? I’m going to blog on this very subject myself in the next couple of days, and I’ve guest blogged about it elsewhere, by request, so perhaps concern for the issue is growing again.
As a reader, I’m very cautious when I pick up a historical romance by a new author. I won’t pick up a whole series any more, and I’ve almost given up on the genre, except for a few favorite authors like Jo Beverley and Robin Schone. I’ve read a few recently which have been highly recommended, but which I wanted to bounce off the nearest wall within the first few pages. And if I read another Regency spy story, it will be one too many.
Romance readers aren’t stupid, but they have more tolerance than most. It’s a shame that that tolerance is abused so often.
Well, I dunno – I agree that the modernisms in historicals are very irritating, but when I come across mentions of those folks, it always feels like a pale rip-off of Heyer. Very few writers do a really good job of inserting real-life people into their stories, at least for my tastes. Even Heyer took a while to get it right.
My pet peeve – Regencies in which the heroine discovers a Jane Austen novel. They should all be paranormals, since presumably she has some kind of psychic powers that let her identify them. :-
Oh Gosh I can’t begin to express how muich I agree and how wrong publishers are, IMO they are killing the once great historocal romance novel, but that’s another story. I think the only book I read which had a Beau Brommel nodd was an old Julie Garwood, it was also done very well. I can’t think of ANY books that actually had Almarks appear, though I am always surprised by that. I am thinking of reading a book called The Importance of Almarks just to see someone mention it.
I think the reason that no one adds historical characters though is to keep with the wallpaper construction, if you put a real person in the mix you have to do more research, and I am not saying that historical authors are lazy, however there seems to be a general lack of respect for the times and it could either be lazyness but is probably the fact that publishers churn out 2 or three books a year by the same author and there just isn’t time.
Bet you didn’t know there was a ‘Georgina’ period, did you! Wow, my typos have outdone their usual lame selves!
Okay, I’ve written a book (one that will be coming out soon) that has, as a prominent player, Mary Anne Evans. I’m not quite sure how readers will feel about that but her life and choices pertain directly to the plot.
As a side note, I know a lot more about the Regency and Georgina periods than I do about the Victorian Era, so I had to do a *lot* of research, which I hope helps, and I had to get around the prevalence of men having bushy whiskers (Yuck!)
OTOH, I’ve never used real people from the time in my Regency novels or Georgians… not sure why?
I’m afraid I can’t give you titles, but I’m positive Beau Brummell, Lady Jersey, Almack’s and Byron were mentioned in several books I read in the past months.
Authors like Jo Beverley and Loretta Chase weave historical people and events into their stories. I only returned to reading romance a couple of years ago and still have to discover lots of other authors, but I’m sure there must be more ‘recent’ authors like JB and LC.
Personally I like it – a lot – when historical people or events are included in a book. Maybe a nice idea for a special title listing?