TEST
So, A Duke, the Lady, and a Baby walk into a bar… (I couldn’t resist opening with a classic bar joke.)
A Duke, the Lady, and A Baby, the first novel in Vanessa Riley’s Rogues and Remarkable Women series of Regency romances, is a one-stop reading experience. It delivers extraordinary storytelling with pleasing amounts of passionate kisses, winsome characters, mystery and intrigue, humor, and coconut bread (yes, a recipe is included).
For the past four years, West Indian “mulatto” heiress Lady Patience Jordan has been unhappily living in England with her aristocratic husband. When he commits suicide, Patience is forced into the Bethlehem Hospital (Bedlam) and her baby boy, Lionel, is claimed by her husband’s cousin, Commander Busick Strathmore, Duke of Repington. After Patience is released from her wrongful confinement, she accepts the aid of Widow’s Grace, a secret society of justice-seeking widows. The group’s leader, Countess Shrewsbury, vows to help Patience to regain custody of Lionel and to settle the unfinished business that will assure the safety of her and her son.
Guided by the Countess, the fiercely determined Patience assumes a false identity and secures a job living and working at her former home as Lionel’s nanny. The territorial nanny-mama reluctantly abides by Busick’s strict rules (i.e. crawling practice) for “little soldier” Lionel. It isn’t long before the couple bonds over their mutual adoration for the baby and develop feelings for each other. Patience admires the handsome wounded soldier’s integrity, and Busick appreciates the beautiful nanny’s refreshing candor. But with suspicion and lies between them, trusting their hearts seems too big a risk for either to take.
I was totally swept away by Riley’s detailed historical descriptions – from military uniform adornments to shady gambling hells (how wicked!). I can say with confidence that I have consumed enough BBC documentaries on the Regency era to recognize that the author meticulously researched period-appropriate dress, language, and customs. I also enjoyed the inclusion of West Indian culture, which effectively highlights the challenges that Patience faced as foreign born “blackamoor” in an interracial marriage.
Patience and Busick are awesome apart, but spectacular together. She is a defiant woman and mother who formerly served as a compliant wife. He is a reformed rogue who serves as an honorable man and father. Both fight for right in their own way. That shared quality coupled with frequent repartée and powerful mutual physical attraction leads the pair to develop a deeply authentic love complete with longing stares and lip locking.
Not only did I adore romance protagonists Patience and Busick, but I also cared about the well-crafted secondary characters. Notable sidekicks include Jemina, former Bedlam inmate and Patience’s amnesiac partner in crime, and Lord Gantry, Busick’s confidante whose wife has mysteriously gone missing. Riley deserves credit for utilizing supporting characters to enrich the narrative instead of to serve an arbitrary purpose.
I have only one criticism to report, which did not detract from my sincere enjoyment of Riley’s solid work. The exclusion of Patience’s incarceration at Bedlam and her subsequent release is both surprising and disappointing. It is the inciting incident of the story, yet this defining moment in Patience’s journey is relegated to brief snippets of dialogue and fleeting recollections. A prologue could possibly have bridged the information gap while providing even more fascinating content.
A Duke, the Lady, and a Baby is a brilliantly crafted Regency romance that is a must-read for #histrom fans. Readers who support women’s resistance and fans of iconic nanny-employer musical romance Sound of Music will appreciate Vanessa Riley’s nods to both. I am all-in on the Rogues and Remarkable Women series and eagerly await book two, which based on the teaser, should prove to be another engrossing read.
(Check out my Behind the Review video blog post on Vanessa Riley’s A Duke, the Lady, and a Baby.)
Buy it at: Amazon or shop at your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: A
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Kisses
Review Date: 30/06/20
Publication Date: 06/2020
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
Related Reviews
Re historical accuracy, I would just point out that there is an extant Earldom of Shrewsbury; I even met the current earl in the course of my work 20 years ago or so. The title was first granted in the 11th century and the title is considered the “premier earldom”. My point is just that I wish writers would take great care not to give fictional characters titles that are alive and well. I don’t suppose the current countess knows about this book but if she did, I wonder what she would think about being a fictional character in a book!!
“I wish writers would take great care not to give fictional characters titles that are alive and well.”
Yeah, you think especially traditionally published authors would at least have someone in the editorial department fact checking to avoid these issues. And, traditionally published or not, how hard is it to do a Google search before sitting down to write a story to make sure your character doesn’t share a name with somebody who actually exists? Even for a short story, I always run potential character names through Google to make sure I haven’t accidentally created a combination that belongs to a celebrity, sports star, or serial killer.
The trouble is, that the more tradtionally published titles I read, the more convinced I am that they don’t have editors who either know or care about these things.
That’s been my impression as well. Beyond cover design, a possible advance, and bragging rights, I see fewer and fewer reasons to be traditionally published.
For me, the big draw is that I wouldn’t be going into the process alone. If I were to self-publish, which I’m considering, I would have to arrange everything, including the part which makes me tired just thinking about it : promotion and marketing. Whereas an established publisher already has a built-in readership and a sales team.
I also had a very savvy and conscientious editor when I was with Samhain. I didn’t write historical romance back then, but I had a character fall into freezing water and my editor asked about the character managing to survive until he was pulled out a short while later. I remember my reply referenced both Titanic (the film) and the hypothermia experiments carried out by Nazi doctors. So while I’m sure there are some editors who aren’t concerned about accuracy, I did have the good experience of working with one who was.
Yeah, I’ve noticed small/indie presses tend to do a better job editing than the big publishers these days. I think it’s because of the sheer volume of authors and manuscripts the Big 5 have to wrangle that it becomes more of a factory model production line in a lot of cases, whereas smaller presses have more time to dedicate to each book. Plus, the Big 5 can afford to churn out a number of mediocre titles as long as they have a few big hits and big name authors in their portfolio. Indie presses don’t have the luxury of screwing up if they want repeat business, hence the more intense editing. Additionally, a lot of small presses were founded by authors and/or editors who were fed up with not having their niche interests served by major publishers, so there’s a labor of love aspect going on too. Anyway, these are just some observations I’ve had.
As for promotion and marketing, I’ve heard quite a few traditionally published authors say that you only get the big advertising if you’re already a proven winner like Stephen King, J.K. Rowling, etc. It’s kind of like the old joke that a bank is a great place to borrow money if you can prove you don’t need it. More and more mainstream publishers are leaving authors to largely fend for themselves and sometimes include requirements that authors maintain active social media accounts.
I’m glad you had a good experience at Samhain (so sad they’re out of business!). I know you’ve said before that you were done with the insecurity of small presses, but Transmundane Press has two very conscientious editors I’ve worked with for speculative short stories under a different pen name. They might be interested in some of the speculative romances you previously published through Samhain. Oh, and I recently learned Nicole Kimberling, former Samhain author who wrote the SF romance “Happy Snak,” started her own small press for queer titles entitled Blind Eye Books. Don’t know if either of these options would interest you, just thought they might be worth looking into.
Getting back to advertising, that’s the big rub isn’t it? I’m afraid I don’t have much advice on the romance end of things because it really is true that erotica sells itself. As for going it alone, I am happy to report that KDP has really streamlined their submission process. Just use MS Word and download their free Kindle Create software for making e-books plus free templates for making paperbacks and you’re good to go.
P.S. I wrote back to your post on “Desperately Seeking Medievals” to answer the question you asked, just in case you didn’t see it. :)
If I were to sign with a publisher, I wouldn’t expect the big advertising that the big names in the industry get, but even basic help in this regard would be better than nothing at all. For my first book, Samhain sent out advance reading copies and got a review from a fairly well-known romance author.
That’s something a major publisher would do as well (just today, I read some advance reviews of the next Lyssa Adams book where readers thanked the publisher for sending them copies). Putting money into a title means publishers would like to see some return on their investment, so while I don’t think they’d be sending me on a book tour, I also don’t think they’d leave marketing up to me alone. A major publisher also tends to have an established readership, which is another benefit I wouldn’t have as a self-publisher.
I was very disappointed when Samhain went out of business, so the only small presses I’d take a chance are ones which I know are established and successful. I’m sure Transmundane and Blind Eye Books are good presses, so thanks for suggesting them, but if I wasn’t aware of them already, it means (to me) that they’re not big enough in romance for me to take the risk. Self-publishing is actually preferable here because at least I’d keep the rights to the books.
Thanks for answering my question in the other blog post! I’ll check it out.
Those are all good points, Marian, about some advertising being better than no advertising. I admit my experience with trad publishers is limited and biased- based largely on horror stories I have heard from other authors. But I can see the other side of it as well. I think we can agree that no matter what the publisher, authors have it rough (unless you’re one of the big wigs- we can all hope!) :)
Keeping the rights to your books- and higher royalty rates- are definitely advantages to self-publishing. I’ve been very happy with KDP. Good luck!
Based on the review I purchased this from Amazon because I needed a break from my anxiety about my school’s insistence on returning to in-person teaching.
But I actually returned it because I found it unreadable. As a woman who breastfed three babies, the whole nursing once a day is ridiculous. And having people call someone “Duke” instead of “Your Grace” was just grating. I know we can’t expect the historical nuances of a Georgette Heyer all the time, but how about some basic knowledge of titles and some minimal realism. I also have to say that I have stopped reading many historical romances because of the insistence on having every male hero be a duke. Again, the anachronism is just too much to take. Can’t we have historical heroes who aren’t fabulously wealthy and titled? Is a good plain Mister just too hard to write about these days? Thanks for letting me rant. I love well-written historicals, but I’m finding fewer and fewer of them.
I used to read HR almost exclusively but read very little these days for the same reasons as you. There are many, many readers who would love to read more HR about non-titled characters, but publishers have it in their heads that “Dukes sell” – one of the team even reviewed a book recently where the hero WASN’T a duke, but the word still appeared in the book title! One of our reviewers, Marian, is also an author, and wrote an historical romance in which the hero was an architect; agents and publishers alike told her to make him into an aristocrat becasue otherwise it wouldn’t sell. *shrug* They don’t inhabit the same corner of Romancelandia that we do, obviously.
“They don’t inhabit the same corner of Romancelandia that we do, obviously.” Nor, do I think, a big chunk of romance readers who gobble up Duke stories. By playing it safe with tried and true tropes/character archetypes, the major romance publishers haven’t gone broke (yet). And loyal duke readers keep coming back for more of the same, giving the publishers little reason to deviate from their formula.
In contrast, when you look at more experimental indie publishers like Samhain and Dreamspinner- well, you can see what became of them. Carina Press and Avon have more power to experiment with plots and characters because they enjoy a large parent company in Harlequin. But you’ll also notice Harlequin strategically plays it safe by keeping all their category romances m/f, putting the kibosh on anything beyond the lightest kink, and sticking to strict formulas- which apparently includes an excess of dukes and other titled Regency heroes.
I can’t remember which romance author’s mother (maybe Alyssa Cole’s?) said, “If it doesn’t have a duke in it, I’m not interested.” I have a feeling that this quote, whoever’s mother said it, sums up the opinion of a larger percentage of romance readership than AAR reviewers and commenters. Because, let’s face it. As many of us as there are around here who enjoy non-titled, non-six packed, non-Regency heroes, I think it’s safe to assume we’re in the minority.
I’ve seen many a review on Goodreads spouting the love of dukes and how the reader doesn’t like books without dukes (or titled gents) in them. I suppose most non-British (and many British, too) writers and readers don’t realise that there are only around 35 actual dukedoms in the UK.
I just read one about an untitled mill-owner (review on the way) so there are untitled heroes about – just not enough of them.
“I’ve seen many a review on Goodreads spouting the love of dukes and how the reader doesn’t like books without dukes (or titled gents) in them.”
See, and I’m just the opposite. I can tolerate a royal or noble hero in a romance if the story/premise is interesting enough, but I have a real life aversion and distaste for aristocracy. I heartily agree with economist/professional doom and gloomer Doug Casey who said something like, “Royalty are nothing more than the glorified, silk-clad descendants of gangsters and thugs.” After all, people didn’t get to be kings and queens of old by being nice or improving humanity in any way. They just burned, raped, and pillaged places better than their rivals and installed themselves at the top of the food chain. And, for some reason, people fawn over their descendants to this day as though they merit any attention for their lucky accident of birth. I mean, say what you want about incredibly wealthy entrepreneurs like Jeff Bezos, but they actually provided useful goods and services beyond flashy entertainment at the taxpayers’ expense.
On that note, I would love to see more romances about entrepreneurs. I don’t necessarily mean of the gaming hell variety (although I have no problem with that), and I don’t mean twenty-five years olds who unrealistically have a billion dollars in the bank from a start-up (it can happen, just incredibly rare and utterly cliché in Romancelandia). I mean like shopkeepers, inventers, and the like. Especially in HR that takes place post-Civil war to WWI, you think there would be a lot more emphasis on scrappy, get-her-done heroes considering all the incredible technological leaps of that era. The clever, hard-working, never-give-up self-made man will always have more sway with me as a hero than the titled heir. But I realize I am in a tiny minority.
P.S. That story about an untitled mill owner sounds intriguing!
Yes, I’m all for self-made entrepreneur heroes, particularly in the Victorian era, who do something useful. (I don’t count gaming hells as useful!) I’m ambivalent about Lisa Kleypas’ books but I particularly like her Secrets of a Summer Night and its hero, Simon Hunt, who is one such. He is also totally focused on winning Annabelle, even though she is vile to him.
“I’m all for self-made entrepreneur heroes… who do something useful.” Definitely. Although I admit I have a bit of a soft spot for the vice industries and lump them under general entertainment along with actors, authors, musicians, and other members of the artisan class. As societies grow wealthier and have more discretionary income, the need for entertainment of various sorts grows along with it. I’m not saying, “Yay! Gaming hells!” but I do regard them as having a purpose when used in moderation.
On this side of the Pond, the Civil War started in 1642 ;)
But yes, there is definitely scope for heroes who made their money in the Industrial Revolution.
I agree that there are too many dukes in historical romance, and I’m also tired of them. I try to avoid buying books with “duke” in the title, but if I stuck too religiously to that rule I’d buy maybe two historicals a year. However, I do want to note that to call a duke “Duke” is not necessarily historically inaccurate. That would usually be done only by those close to him, but perhaps in this case the H/h’s growing intimacy and shared love for the baby has drawn them close enough for the use of the term to be appropriate. See the article by Jo Beverly that is linked below (I actually found it here on AAR, although it then sends you to her website for the actual article).
https://www.jobev.com/title.html
No dukes! Fair as a Star, by Mimi Matthews. The book is as beautiful and lovely as the cover.
In Trollope’s Palliser novels, the Duke of Omnium is called “Duke” by his friends and relations. It startled me at first, but I defer to Trollope on the historical accuracy of the mode of address.
Oh, this sounds sweet! I can’t wait to read it.
The story sounds interesting, but I’m not crazy about the cover. If I didn’t know anything about the plot, I would assume this was a parody of Regency stories based on the modern quirky typeface.
Also, there is no way to tell from the silhouettes that the story stars a West Indian woman. Once again, it seems traditional publishing houses are eager to shy away from showing non lily-white characters on their covers.
I think either a lush illustration that clearly show the characters’ appearances or photographed models a la Harlequin Historical would have set the tone better. One of those classic looking Regency covers like Penguin Classics produces would look fantastic. Think in the vein of this cover for Pride and Prejudice: https://www.amazon.com/Jane-Austen/dp/0141439513/. Showing Lady Patience Jordan like this would be awesome! Too bad she got the cartoonish romcom treatment instead.
What do you all think?
I agree that the book cover is a poor representative of the content. When I critique a novel, I don’t hold the author accountable for a marketing decision that they have little to no say in. So, book cover design is not factored into the overall grade.
Oh, I would never hold an author accountable either- or let it affect a review grade. But I did think the cover design was worth mentioning.
Not just the cover but the title as well. (Sounds like none of these three characters are even related, when in fact they are.) Neither cover nor title seem to fit Liz’s description of what the book is about. Very weird choices by someone.
I am in! The sensuous is more important than the explicit. Despite that, this book sounds different and I need different! Enjoyed your review, Liz.
Thank you!
Very nice review! I’ve read already today some pretty stellar reviews of it, including one from Cat Sebastian. It’s nice to come in at the start of a new series.
And this is why I’m so glad we have sensuality ratings. This sounds lovely but kisses books just aren’t for me.
Same.
I’ve ALWAYS said we should indicate whether a book has sex scenes or not! :P
Yes you have. And I have ALWAYS said I love more detailed sex ratings.
That said, I just gave a DIK to another ‘kisses,’ book…so this one is tempting. It sounds terrific!
I’m fairly agnostic as to sensuality ratings in choosing books. Sometimes I want a bit more and sometimes a bit less. I’ve been known to roll my eyes and wish for more dialogue and plot and character development rather than another sex scene, especially in an historical when the possible consequences of premarital sex were so potentially dire for the heroine. I need for the sex to serve as a means to understand the characters and show their developing relationship, otherwise it can feel gratuitous. If the author can do that with kisses only, that can be fine with me.