Are billionaires the new dukes? Or do we hate both these days?
According to Wikipedia, there are around 2700 or so billionaires in the world. Several of them are determined, after mastering our world, to take their empires to other worlds. Many a critic has said, good, get lost, we don’t need no stinking uber uber uber rich guys. Here at AAR, however, we’re slightly positive about romances featuring billionaires. Of the 24 books we’ve reviewed with billionaire in the title, two have been DIKs, fourteen have gotten Bs, six have gotten Cs, and two have gotten Ds. We’ve not reviewed a book with billionaire since November of 2020 and of the 114 books out for review right now, none feature leads with assets in the ten+ figures.
Dukes, even in the Regency era, were a rarer thing. There were never, according to most, more than 40. AAR has reviewed 229 books featuring Dukes–twelve just this year–37 of which have gotten DIKs. Two more are currently scheduled for review.
In both cases, I’ve only looked at books with billionaire and Duke in the title. I’d hazard there are at least two hundred other books starring Dukes and at least a few more with billionaires.
What do you think about books with billionaires? Ones with Dukes? Love one? Hate the other? Hate the both? Love both? And, if you can, share titles you’ve read and why you liked or loathed them.
This is from a thread a couple years ago:
<<
Regarding being tired of dukes, they are a symptom of a broader inflation problem that shows up in a lot of fiction: title inflation, wealth inflation, power inflation, destructiveness inflation, etc. Heyer managed to write a lot of books with Regency settings with only a few dukes among the protagonists. In the years since, dukes have become common. Some years ago, a millionaire was a big deal, now books are littered with billionaires. In paranormal / fantastic / science fictional stories, especially series, there is a large subset with characters and/or devices that grow more powerful with each story. In the “Golden Age” SF of E. E. “Doc” Smith (Skylark series and Lensmen series), conflicts grew from continental scale to planetary to galactic or intergalactic. Inflation occurs in the works of single authors, and in whole genres. I don’t know a cure.
>>
Based on hearsay, one cause of inflation is pressure from publishers. The author might write a story that works fine with a plain mister or a lower rank of noble, and the publisher insists on a duke.
Did anyone get the email from Amazon today? How timely- they are having an 80% off sale on “Duke” romance books. Too funny.
If Dukes are your thing it’s time to stock up- Through AAR’s affiliate link of course!
I check KDD every morning—and this morning there were over 60 books, every single one of them HR, almost all appear to be Regencies, and a good number have “Duke” or “Earl” in the title.
Please note that the link for this is on the Home page under Steals and Deals!
There are a ton of best selling authors included like Cat Sebastian, Julia Quinn and Loretta Chase amongst many others.
I know. Tons of them are on our Amazon storefront.
I just DNF a book with a duke and I’am angry with me because I should have known better. The book is well written, and it would have been an enjoyable read if the hero would be a well to do baronet or baron. At the mention that this duke joined the army (till after Waterloo) for two years and had no higher rank as a captain I quit. That he marries the illigitimate daughter of an actress… dukes can do many things in romance… but the army part, that was a bit too much for me. During the part I’ve read he never acted as a duke, a baronet perhaps or the son of a wealthy merchand.
I asked myself if the author had a hero in mind who came from the lower nobility and was forced to alter the title or if she herself has no idea what it meant to be a duke in regency times.
I don’t usually read books about Billionaires mostly because I rarely read CR. I personally don’t know any Billionaires, so to me they are almost too fairy tale to believe. I read a lot of HR and I do get frustrated by all the Dukes, and other titled heroes/heroines, running around. But I’m willing to read about them if its an author I like and the plot sounds interesting. I really appreciate authors who write about characters who are not titled. Carla Kelly does this a lot. Even though HR is mostly escapist fantasy, I do like to have elements of realism in the story. I can relate to the seamstresses, clerks, and other working class characters who are trying to make a living and have real world concerns.
You also don’t see many stories these days with lesser titles (Squire, Baron, Knight, even Viscount). Give me a Bad Baron (i believe that was the title of a book from 25 or 30 years ago, maybe Anita Mills or early Mary Jo Putney).
TBH, “Knight” would make me think the story was a medieval. But yeah, I agree that the higher-ranked the title, the more you’re likely to see it. Same reason heroes can’t be merely millionaires if the authors want to stand out, I suppose.
If they look like the Duke of Hastings I LOVE them lol
He is a HOTTIE!
On this morning when Amazon’s Jeff Bezos is minutes away from blasting off into space but can’t seem to find a way to pay his warehouse employees a living wage or give them adequate bathroom breaks, I have to reiterate the final point in my comment below from yesterday: sometimes “billionaire hero” is just code for “in this book, we’re not going to worry about how the bills get paid.” It does bring up another interesting tangent though: how often do we see representations of working-class heroes & heroines in romance (HR or CR)? MCs who at the start of the book are working hard to make ends meet and by the end of the book have achieved a romantic HEA but are still working hard to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, bills paid, etc.? It seems to me that in CR, even if the MCs aren’t billionaire-level wealthy, earning & saving money is done with ease (I’m thinking of all those romances where the heroine opens a bakery or coffee shop and has instant success) or has a job where apparently they can take off endless days or mornings/afternoons and no one is reminding them to complete a PTO form. I just finished a romance where a 25-year-old office manager was able to “extend her vacation” to spend some extra days with the hero and it was nbd. After spending 40-plus years in the working world, that was an eye-roller! In short (ha!), it seems to me that romances are rarely realistic about money, wealth, work, making ends meet, etc., regardless of the class or wealth level of the protagonists.
I think part of that is that romance is supposed to be escapist for many readers. Given how many struggle to not be overwhelmed by work and money issues, it makes sense to me that people would like to read about characters who have none of those very real worries.
No disagreement from me there. I’m just saying, what’s the point of hating on fictional billionaire or Duke heroes, when reading romances (regardless of how the MCs make money) functions as an escape? I don’t think any of us are looking for financial verisimilitude in our reading; whereas emotional accuracy is another thing altogether.
Totally agree.
Well, not to go down too many rabbit trails, I still think there is a big difference between a little hand-waving to ease the path of a “regular” person, and reading about the uber-wealthy. It can be fun to indulge in some vicarious pleasure, reading about private jets,and $5000 suits. But these days I can’t enjoy it because irl the uber-wealthy are not pulling their weight in taxes, playing hardball with lobbying and trying to horde even more money while people die from lack of health care. I know some people read these as escapist fantasies, but I can’t. I can believe it when it comes to someone creating a successful business a little too easily (I was just reading an article on people establishing successful businesses during the pandemic) or getting extra days off, because these things don’t have a negative impact on others in the same way the actions of many billionaires do.
I try to avoid books where the hero is a Duke simply because at this point it’s a tired trope to provide the level of wealth and luxury we feel the heroine deserves, as if a rich Baron weren’t enough for a fairy tale wedding. I do read them, however, when the author is one I trust (e.g., Loretta Chase) or the story sounds interesting for some other reason.
But a billionaire hero is, to me, a contradiction in terms and is the exact opposite of a fairy tale. An article by Roxanne Roberts in today’s Washington Post quotes an article by Geoffrey James from Inc.com. In it James says billionaires tend to believe that life is a pure meritocracy and that they’ve become rich because they’re superior to everyone else. They look down on anyone not as rich and view it as a moral flaw or weakness and feel they are entitled to do whatever they want, everyone and everything else be damned. Just not my idea of a romantic hero, although YMMV. This is one reason I find the dukes somewhat more acceptable than the billionaires — the dukes often are written with a sense of responsibility to the land and people who depend on them.
This is very true and there’s an extension to this. Chrystia Freeland interviewed the super rich for her book Plutocrats (which I highly recommend) and she interviewed both “old money” and “new money” people.
The observation she makes is that people who inherited money tend to have a stronger sense of “there’s an element of luck or privilege in this” and therefore they tend to be more compassionate to (relatively) poorer people, with the understanding that life is not pure meritocracy. Therefore they are more able to respect others, even if they are giving to charity. But it’s the people who came from poor background who tend to be the most invested in “everything is a meritocracy, I fully deserve this and if anyone has less that’s their own fault”. I can totally see why – I came from a poor background and these days I have a highly paying job. Not all my classmates were so lucky. It is very tempting to believe that it is all on my own merit – and yes, I have natural abilities and I worked extremely hard for what I have over the years. But I also know of other smart people who worked hard and didn’t get anywhere as much. But if one believes that luck is a factor then one also has to believe that things could go wrong and I could lose what I gained — a scary prospect to contemplate. So I think many people hide behind the meritocracy idea from that fear.
Plutocrats is well worth reading for the insights: https://www.amazon.com/Plutocrats-Rise-Global-Super-Rich-Everyone-ebook/dp/B007V65OQG
I have met a real life billionnaire – or maybe not quite but as close as makes no difference. Former Soviet Union was land of opportunity for this for a while.
Does money make a difference – oh, so much, there’s a particular fairy tale aspect to not needing to worry about it and having maids and housekeepers solve everything for you. It’s very enticing. Also, status that comes from donating huge amount of money to charities and to church, awards and praise that come from it and make you feel good.
Having bodyguards everywhere, including any sort of entertainment – not so enticing, especially for the 20-something children of the family. Lifelong friendships which fall apart because the difference in incomes and lifestyles just got too large – also not too enticing. Neither is worrying about “we gave them so much money but they don’t quite seem grateful enough for the help”. Appearances to maintain in the new circle. People who don’t believe that genuine sports and other personal achievements for the kids are not due to bribes and money. Oh, and from what I can discern, for a poor person to marry into that family was a very difficult path even in the “true love” situation.
And then there’s death at a young age because of a random accident. Family strife and heartbreak that’s no different from a poor person – but see also: old friendships have fallen away and that makes finding people to trust and confide in harder.
So… Money buys a lot and it is very tempting — but I still would not choose that particular life and would be really concerned about a not-rich heroine joining that. I also find a lot of billionaire books downright unrealistic in how they describe it (though admittedly my experience is limited to that one particular person I met). So I try to internally substitute “billionaire” for “a very rich person but who still has a chance of more integrated life”.
I don’t seek or avoid stories with billionaires or dukes. I slightly downgrade my expectations if I see either from an unfamiliar author. My primary selection criteria in descending order are: I already like other stories from the author, I expect humor, and I expect paranormal or SF elements.
These are all the books in my list of romances recommended for humor with billionaire or duke in the title:
martin, annika: the billionaire’s wake-up-call girl****
monroe, max: tapping the billionaire****.5
monroe, max: the billionaire book club****.5
clare, jessica: stranded with a billionaire***
clare, jessica: the wrong billionaire’s bed***
martin, annika: the billionaire’s fake fiancee***.5
monroe, max: banking the billionaire***.5
monroe, max: scoring the billionaire***
monroe, max: the billionaire boss next door***
lynson, jane: the duke’s downfall*****
christenberry, judith/judy: my daddy the duke****
enoch, suzanne: the black duke’s prize****
long, julie anne: what i did for a duke****
quinn, julia: the duke and i****
bowen, kelly: i’ve got my duke to keep me warm***
castle, philippa: the reluctant duke***
chase, loretta: dukes prefer blondes***.5
chase, loretta: ten things i hate about the duke***
chater, elizabeth: the duke’s dilemma***
dipasqua, lila: the duke’s match girl***
frampton, megan: put up your duke***
james, eloisa: the taming of the duke***
lansdowne, judith a.: the bedeviled duke***
long, julie anne: the runaway duke***
milan, courtney: the duke who didn’t***.5
putman, eileen: never kiss a duke***
reed, joy: the duke and miss denny***
south, sheri cobb: the desperate duke***
stewart, lois: the duke’s mistress***
summerville, margaret: the duke’s disappearance***
westhaven, margaret: the duke’s design***
These are the 3 Heyer books with dukes that I recall:
heyer, georgette: these old shades****
heyer, georgette: sylvester (or, the wicked uncle)****
heyer, georgette: the foundling***
I don’t think I’ve ever read a book with “billionaire” in the title. It’s kind of off-putting for the reasons a number of people have already mentioned. However, I can think of two that I have enjoyed—Roark in the In Death series and Rick in Suzanne Enoch’s Samantha Jellicoe series.
I’ve read more dukes that I’ve liked, partly because I read far more historicals than contemporaries. I don’t mind them, but I expect them to be more than a bit arrogant because that really were so powerful. Madeline Hunter does a good job with this—not only the power but also the isolation. When you’re one of the most powerful men in the world, in many ways more powerful than the king, it’s got to be lonely.
(Confession: I also wrote one.)
I’ve been reading the comments here with interest and agree with quite a few of them.
First, in regard to billionaires, I’m definitely not interested. Like @oceanjasper says below, titles with “billionaire” in them scream of wallpaper writing in the same league as HRs with “duke” in the title. It comes across to me as a salesman keyword rather than an indicator of story or character. Perhaps that’s a stereotypical interpretation, but we’ve all seen how certain keywords fit neatly into tightly-defined tropes. @DiscoDollyDeb gives a good breakdown of the types of billionaire stories, and none of those particular storylines appeal to me. Although in all fairness to these fictional billionaire heroes, I’m not much of a fan of CR in general unless the author has a unique angle.
Also, I wonder how much of billionaire romance is a direct response to the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey? It certainly had an influence on erotica and erotic romance. Plus, there seems to be this idea of billionaire = insta-alpha male. In a way, it’s true. You generally don’t get to be that rich by being a nice, sweet cinnamon roll hero unless you write a runaway bestseller or invent some kind of tech that takes the world by storm.
Second, about dukes: not a fan. Don’t get me wrong. I love historical fiction, and my enjoyment of HR stems from this. But Regency is not my favorite time period, and the idea of nobility leaves me cold rather than lighting my fire. This is the insufferable American in me, but I don’t give two hoots who your ancestors were or what fancy title you’re supposedly entitled to use. I care about what you make of yourself, regardless of your origins. For that reason, I am far more attracted to HRs starring entrepreneurial heroes and heroines rather than titled ones. (But I certainly don’t think they have to be millionaires or billionaires in order to be successful!) If I do read a story with a titled character or any sort of Regency piece, it is despite those tropes rather than because of them. A lot of times, the promise of an intriguing story enables me to put up with the more classical HR tropes.
For example, I enjoyed Cat Sebastian’s A Duke in Disguise as it stars a prickly heroine printshop owner/engraver whose gentle apprentice is the hero. But I would have loved it a lot more if that were the whole story instead of the seemingly obligatory trope of “we thought the hero was a commoner but he’s actually titled.” Ugh… Obviously, I knew that going into it because of the book title, but it was one of those things I felt I had to tolerate in order to enjoy the blossoming relationship between the cool engraver heroine and her sweet cinnamon roll apprentice.
I think because I have known some Billionaires and some professional athletes I can never enjoy a romance that centers around either. I just can’t imagine them as any kind of romance hero. The type of personality it takes to build a billion dollar empire is just not my idea of a romantic lead.
I’ve read a couple where a poor family hits it big in oil after being physical workers in the industry that held my attention because they weren’t the typical “wheeler dealer” hero in an expensive suit who is cold and needs a good woman to “teach him the valuable things in life”. Yawn.
I don’t know any Dukes but I do tend to cringe when I see “Duke” in the title because it’s often hand in hand with sloppy research and the trend of “let’s stick a Duke in the title” as if most of the rest of the peerage isn’t wealthy or privileged enough to hold our attention.
Like I like to point out to people- the “real” Downton Abbey, Highclere Castle is the home of the (mere) Earl of Carnarvon. And Earl is somewhat “down the line” in titles after Duke, and Marquess. They could mix the titles up a bit just for variety’s sake.
We’ve reviewed 96 books with Earl in the title.
I have never actually known a billionaire to the best of my knowledge although I went to college with Melinda Gates and I’ve been at charity functions with Jim Goodnight.
chrisreader – very well put. In my working life I did deal with several billionaires, a couple of dukes and various other members of the aristocracy. Personally, I found that they were all just human beings although a few of the self-made billionaires had some pretty shocking table manners!!! My job involved arranging events and dinners at a very high profile level and I found it fascinating to meet these people whom I had read about or who had figured in some scandal of some sort. I had the great privilege of arranging two functions at Buckingham Palace and meeting the staff who worked for the senior royal who was Patron of the charity concerned was interesting; they were switched on people who were extremely professional, kind and helpful. At the end of the day, I don’t deliberately seek out either dukes or billionaires in my reading probably because of the gross inaccuracies and high level of cringeworthy fantasy that prevails nearly every time though a few authors get it right. And, with reference to the discussions about historical accuracy here, why won’t authors at least get the research correct in title use – something I will never understand.
Oh Elaine, I understand what you are saying about the manners! Too funny. Buckingham Palace, how wonderful that must have been! I don’t have any Royal gossip but I have seen some manner issues from let’s say representatives related to the top tier of U.S. government that certainly were eye opening.
I think either due to ignorance (or a desire to make the people seem ‘relatable” to 21st century U.S. consumers) most writers ignore the very different sense of deportment and familiarity there tends to be between modern “Americans” and pretty much every European, let alone nobility.
If I had a nickel for every person who has said (or even article I have read) that said they can spot an American abroad by how we smile at everyone and strike up conversations everywhere with strangers- I’d have a lot of nickels.
I like that “we” are like that -and I am definitely a smiler myself but I have to laugh a little when modern writers put 19th century Dukes in that modern American mindset.
I think the grade inflation leading to the plethora of Dukes and Billionaires and probably Billionaire Dukes is lazy storytelling that publishers pushed along with wallpaper historicals and small-town romances. It’s a shorthand fairy tale. Yes, some authors really did have stories that needed a duke or billionaire, but most just followed the trend.
Look at Austen (very few titled heroes or heroines or major characters) through Heyer (more aristocracy than Austen, but very few dukes and a fair amount of Sirs or just plain Misters) to today where Regency historicals must have at least one duke in every series. I read Loretta Chase and Tessa Dare’s recent Duke series because I like the authors but otherwise I would never have picked those stories up.. Publishers may say the public wants and buys dukes and billionaire and maybe that is indeed what a lot of readers want in their comfort reads. But I know that it keeps me from trying new authors.
Yes to all of this.
I tend to avoid books with “billionaire” in the title because it feels like the author is deliberately highlighting how much money the guy has. And yes, there’s the element of escapism, but somehow I feel a bit crass if the guy’s net worth is the first or most important thing about him. It would be like a romance titled, “Marcus and the Hottie” or “How to Marry a Large-Bosomed Woman”.
The thousands of duke books aren’t great either, but I don’t actively avoid books with “duke” in the title, though I don’t glom them either. Maybe because I’ve enjoyed romances where the heroes were dukes, whereas I can count the number of billionaire romances I’ve read on the fingers of one hand. And none of those ended up on my keeper shelf either.
We were asked a few blogs ago about successful women who were shown actually working at their jobs. Do we have any titles of Dukes and/or Billionaires where they’re shown truly doing the hard stuff – long hours, endless meetings, hands-on estate management- associated with their titles or fortune? I adored Villiers, but, let’s face it, the man was a butterfly.
And I don’t let Duke in the title put me off the story.
I’m tired of Dukes in HR and wish for more books without MC’s who are titled. However, even though I don’t seek out HR’s with dukes, I also am willing to read them, especially if recommended. I have loved several of Loretta Chase’s books with dukes and I’m sure there are others. Billionaires in CR are more problematic for me. It’s more difficult for me to suspend disbelief and since so many of the billionaires making the news these days are contemptible people, I’m a little jaded. I realize, just like the big Hollywood movies with escapist fantasies about making it big and marrying into money, people like to indulge in stories about people with no money worries, who go exotic places and wear gorgeous clothes, etc. It can be fun escapism. The darker stories that DiscoDollyDeb mentioned don’t interest me because I honestly don’t want to look closely at ruthless billionaires.
I think it’s funny that it has to be a “billionaire” as it also has to be a “Duke”. I can assure the general public that there are lots of people who have mere “millions” instead of the necessary billions, that live the life of fantasy: owning private jets, luxurious homes all over the world, travel at the drop of a hat and a life where you just hire people to take care of everything you don’t want to deal with.
Want to become an amateur race car driver? Sure. Want to buy a fancy European villa or estate you use a few times a year while having a compound on the Florida keys for a couple of “cold months” OK. Have the most expensive horses, yachts and custom made Chanel clothing? No problem. Call up your jeweler and buy six figure pieces of jewelry over the phone? Check.
No need to wait until you hit that first billion.
I don’t read books with “millionaire” in the title either, and Dabney specifically mentions billionaires, so I was responding in kind.
But,yes. I totally agree with you.
Oh it wasn’t aimed at you, I just meant in general that publishers are obviously pushing the “Billionaire” title the same way as the Duke. As if mere millionaires and Marquesses aren’t rich and fancy enough.
That’s what I thought.:-)
I have no problems with dukes in HR. I don’t seek them out, but it’s not something that puts me off a book I’d otherwise be interested in. But I do wish there was more variety and more main characters without titles.
I tend to avoid books with billionaires, though, and generally prefer main characters in contemporary romance not to be swimming in money.
It’s possibly unfair of me but ‘billionaire’ makes me think the author couldn’t be bothered creating a real character with any actual personality traits and ‘duke’ screams formulaic and probably anachronistic wallpaper historical. It
also reminds me that I hate the bland titles so beloved of publishers. In my opinion they are a large part of why the rest of the literary world doesn’t take romance seriously as a genre. Doesn’t mean I’ve never read a billionaire/duke book, just that I wish we could move on from them.
I can’t speak to the Dukes because I rarely read HR, but in CR, there tend to be three types of billionaire books: First, the “I never dreamed I’d be a billionaire” books, where the hero has invented an app or other piece of technology that made him a billionaire, but who has plowed the profits back into sustainable energy, feeding the hungry, or some other worthwhile goal. In those books, the money is there to smooth the path for the couple; it’s more along the lines of “now the heroine won’t have to worry about her mother’s medical bills” rather than a factor that gets the hero what he wants. Then there’s the “I’m a billionaire and can get anyone or anything I want—except this beautiful, honorable woman who will not agree to be with me unless I show her that I’ve changed and can love someone else more than I love myself.” This type of billionaire is a fixture of the Harlequin Presents universe and also books like Annika Martin’s Billionaires in Manhattan series: the men are rich, but they meet their emotional match in the definitely not-rich heroines. Finally, there’s the billionaires of dark romance—who are probably most like real-life billionaires (ruthlessly buying whatever they want, not acknowledging the rights or the humanity of the less wealthy, running roughshod over legal matters or the concerns of others)—but with six-pack abs and tragic backstories. I read quite a bit of dark romance and at least the billionaires there make no bones about the crimes that built their fortune. Sometimes I think “billionaire” is just a marker for “OK, we’re not going to worry about how the rent gets paid in this book.”
One thing that always seems off to me is how young billionaires in romance are. 90% of the world’s billionaires are over 50 and many are over 70. There are a lot of younger people, especially in tech, who’ve made tens of millions but billionaires under 35 are rare.
No one wants to read a romance with a 70-year-old billionaire!
Well, Zuckerberg is 37. Elon Musk is 50.
Don’t forget the Winklevoss twins. They’re 39.
Bleeeech! Not one of them raises an iota of sexual or other interest for me. No amount of dosh would help :-(
Except, maybe, a 70-year-old-billionaire!
I assure you that my 70-year-old grandmother would like to hahaha.
Lol. I’m only a few years shy of 70 myself–but I still want my romance heroes (billionaires or not) on the younger side of 40!
This is a great breakdown, DDD. Thanks.
I think that I’ve only read one book with Billionaire in the title – the first in Alexis Hall’s trilogy. I don’t find myself drawn to Billionaire books at all. I think that’s probably because I immediately think of Richard Branson and, just… NO!
As I read HR for many years, I’ve obviously read a huge number of books with Dukes in them, but I didn’t choose them because they had Duke in the title – I chose them because I liked the author or something about the story appealed to me.
I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence that I started ‘going off’ HR at around the time that I moved to a very feudal area. The whole of the road system here is totally chaotic because the two local Dukes won’t let any road improvements use their land. And I’m talking about the main road along the South Coast of England here!
I struggle with reading about that level of entitlement when I can see it still being played out around me in 2021.
One of the great conundrums of modern life is property management and how, in places where property rights tilt towards the owners, it’s increasingly very difficult to create roads, public transportation, and a whole host of other things many feel would better society for all. This is in marked contrast to, say China, where the government ultimately owns all the land and can do what it wants to with it, or in India where the government has a lot of power over land management.
In the US, we have eminent domain laws–does Britain have those?
I had to Google the term because I’ve never heard of “eminent domain.”. But it seems that it’s the same as what we call “compulsory purchase” where the govt can decide to buy land and whatever is on it. It certainly happens and land is so scarce here that doing so is almost certainly going to cause problems because chances are the land has homes and businesses on it. There has been talk over the past few years of allowing building on green belt land (which hasn’t been allowed) and it’s a very unpopular idea.
I wonder if there has ever been a compulsory purchase of ducal land? I Googled it but couldn’t easily find any info.
I doubt that a Tory Local Council or government would take on a Duke.
In the US, eminent domain is almost always used against the poor.
I haven’t been able to bring myself to read billionaire books. I’m not sure why because when I read HR (I haven’t read f/m HR for a while), I had no problem reading about dukes. I didn’t seek out dukes, though—I didn’t really care about what title the male MC had.
Since it’s been a while, I don’t quite remember a lot of specifics of titles, but the dukes who come to mind that I enjoyed reading many times are (in no particular order):
…
I just checked a list on Goodreads to see if I’m missing any, and holy hell there are a lot of duke books. I was quite surprised by how many I’ve read over the years, but I did not add any to the above. My list remains short of dukes I have loved and would read again.