Scan barcode
cam411's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
lighthearted
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.25
annalaurasw's review
2.0
I'd been enjoying this series and I was intrigued by the secret marriage/reunited lovers premise, but the backstory given to Rose's secret husband of being captured and sold as a slave off the Barbary coast, with absolutely no mention of the participation in the African slave trade by English aristocracy during this time period in either the text or the afterword, does not sit well with me. It definitely gives me "it's only tragic/sympathetic backstory when it happens to a well-off white person" vibes. I consider the first two books in the series worth reading, but would encourage others to skip this one.
jody_diou's review against another edition
adventurous
challenging
emotional
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
melissa_bookworm's review against another edition
4.0
Hold on to your bonnets, I liked another historical romance. Are we surprised? No. Anne Gracie has stolen my heart.
jackiehorne's review
2.0
ARC from Netgalley
I enjoyed Gracie's 2nd book in the "Marriage of Convenience" series, and was looking forward to reading the story of elder sister Rose's romance. But I found myself more disappointed than overjoyed by this latest installment. The book opens with Rose at the altar, about to marry a duke whom she's chosen because he, like she, doesn't want to marry for love. But when the wedding is interrupted by an unkempt but well-spoken man, it turns out that Rose had once, and secretly, married for love, when she was an adolescent. Rose hadn't told anyone in her family about the secret wedding; at the time, her beloved sister Lily was ill with a dangerous case of the mumps, her favorite brother was away at war, and her father and eldest brother would only have had the marriage annulled, since she was underage and married without permission. And since her husband was soon reported dead at sea, she had no reason to tell anyone later.
Rose's reaction to the sudden reappearance of Thomas Beresford (he was 23, she was 16 when they married) is unexpected; rather than embrace him with joy after his four-year absence, as Thomas had imagined, she's upset and standoffish, surrounded by female relatives who want to protect her from this apparent interloper. At first, Thomas insists Rose is his no matter what her male relatives say. But, worried that perhaps Rose no longer wants him, and that he is no longer worthy of her, he has a sudden change of heart and abruptly agrees to her family's wishes for an annulment. As soon as he does, however, Rose decides she wants to abide by her marriage vows, even though the engaging, open man she married is far from the abrupt, taciturn near-stranger who faces her now.
Both Rose and Thomas have experienced trauma in the four years since they've been apart, but while Rose confides her difficulties and hurts to Thomas, he keeps the details of his hidden, although it is revealed fairly early on in the story that. The two have a lot of sex, but beyond that there isn't much to show them getting to know one another again, or any events that bring them emotionally closer. Rose is cheerful, Thomas is taciturn, the story is amused by all the "female" bustling about decorating their new house and preparing for the ball announcing Thomas's return to society. And then there's some melodrama about someone trying to kill Thomas...
Perhaps because I'm in the midst of doing research about the British in West Africa during the Regency period, reading a lot about British involvement in the African slave trade, I found myself frustrated by the awkward combination here of lighthearted narrative (cute dog, men laughing at the way their women bulldoze over their wishes, etc) with the backstory of Thomas's enslavement.
It made me wonder: how many historical romances have featured Europeans coming back from being enslaved by Barbary pirates, vs. those that have featured Englishmen who were actively involved in the African slave trade (even as villains)? So many real Brits were involved in the latter, even members Brits of the aristocracy (37 members of the House of Lords received compensation from the West India Slave Compensation Commission in 1833, as did 80 of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons). And many newly wealthy members of society had made their money from their involvement in slavery or its allied trades (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063db18). In contrast, while thousands of Europeans were enslaved by the Barbary pirates, most were from southern Europe, which suggests that, at least during the Regency period, the number of Brits who benefited from the Atlantic slave trade was far higher than those who were the victims of the Northern African slave trade.
Though it was surely not the intention of Gracie or other white authors of historical romance to minimize the severity of the Atlantic slave trade, those who feature protagonists who experienced enslavement at the hands of the Ottomans and ignore the participation of Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade can inadvertently suggest that Europeans were the ones most harmed by enslavement during the English Regency period, and contribute to unthinkingly to white supremacist rhetoric and discourse.
I enjoyed Gracie's 2nd book in the "Marriage of Convenience" series, and was looking forward to reading the story of elder sister Rose's romance. But I found myself more disappointed than overjoyed by this latest installment. The book opens with Rose at the altar, about to marry a duke whom she's chosen because he, like she, doesn't want to marry for love. But when the wedding is interrupted by an unkempt but well-spoken man, it turns out that Rose had once, and secretly, married for love, when she was an adolescent. Rose hadn't told anyone in her family about the secret wedding; at the time, her beloved sister Lily was ill with a dangerous case of the mumps, her favorite brother was away at war, and her father and eldest brother would only have had the marriage annulled, since she was underage and married without permission. And since her husband was soon reported dead at sea, she had no reason to tell anyone later.
Rose's reaction to the sudden reappearance of Thomas Beresford (he was 23, she was 16 when they married) is unexpected; rather than embrace him with joy after his four-year absence, as Thomas had imagined, she's upset and standoffish, surrounded by female relatives who want to protect her from this apparent interloper. At first, Thomas insists Rose is his no matter what her male relatives say. But, worried that perhaps Rose no longer wants him, and that he is no longer worthy of her, he has a sudden change of heart and abruptly agrees to her family's wishes for an annulment. As soon as he does, however, Rose decides she wants to abide by her marriage vows, even though the engaging, open man she married is far from the abrupt, taciturn near-stranger who faces her now.
Both Rose and Thomas have experienced trauma in the four years since they've been apart, but while Rose confides her difficulties and hurts to Thomas, he keeps the details of his hidden, although it is revealed fairly early on in the story that
Spoiler
he was captured by Barbary pirates and sold as a slavePerhaps because I'm in the midst of doing research about the British in West Africa during the Regency period, reading a lot about British involvement in the African slave trade, I found myself frustrated by the awkward combination here of lighthearted narrative (cute dog, men laughing at the way their women bulldoze over their wishes, etc) with the backstory of Thomas's enslavement.
It made me wonder: how many historical romances have featured Europeans coming back from being enslaved by Barbary pirates, vs. those that have featured Englishmen who were actively involved in the African slave trade (even as villains)? So many real Brits were involved in the latter, even members Brits of the aristocracy (37 members of the House of Lords received compensation from the West India Slave Compensation Commission in 1833, as did 80 of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons). And many newly wealthy members of society had made their money from their involvement in slavery or its allied trades (see https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b063db18). In contrast, while thousands of Europeans were enslaved by the Barbary pirates, most were from southern Europe, which suggests that, at least during the Regency period, the number of Brits who benefited from the Atlantic slave trade was far higher than those who were the victims of the Northern African slave trade.
Though it was surely not the intention of Gracie or other white authors of historical romance to minimize the severity of the Atlantic slave trade, those who feature protagonists who experienced enslavement at the hands of the Ottomans and ignore the participation of Europeans in the Atlantic slave trade can inadvertently suggest that Europeans were the ones most harmed by enslavement during the English Regency period, and contribute to unthinkingly to white supremacist rhetoric and discourse.
amy9909's review
2.0
This author decided to ask the questions 'how does a young couple separated by time and trauma rekindle their relationship' and 'how will a woman betrayed and used by her husband forgive and love him' and generally takes away any intriguing motivations or complex emotions from these characters (namely the man because this is a cheap romance, and thus woman aren't flawed because they aren't even the main characters no matter how they market it), and then decided those questions couldn't possibly be interesting, let's instead answer to question 'who be stealin'. As soon as I learnt that the plot was abandoning half it's characters half way through and any complexity or depth in favour of fixing the problems off-screen so nobody had to deal with any negative emotions or consequences for even a second, I literally had to force myself to finish it and lost any interest in the story. My expectations were low, I am generally very easy to please, but those expectations literally got shattered with how disappointing this book gets. Such a waste of time.
luckyvjn's review
2.0
Historical inaccuracies abound in all of them but this one was particularly annoying: that’s. Not. How. Succession. Worked.
blodeuedd's review against another edition
1.0
Honestly I felt this one got worse and worse and I do not know why I did not dnf.
Rose is about to marry a Duke, but then he long lost hubbie shows up. The one she never told anyone about, the one she married at 16.
First the drama is about her family not wanting him around.
Then when there is happiness, the drama changes to this other thing. That just felt weird.
I honestly lost interest and it felt like a chore. I know I know, DNF! But I need to dnf audio in the first hour, when I am half way through I push on which I know realise is a mistake.
Very disappointed
Rose is about to marry a Duke, but then he long lost hubbie shows up. The one she never told anyone about, the one she married at 16.
First the drama is about her family not wanting him around.
Then when there is happiness, the drama changes to this other thing. That just felt weird.
I honestly lost interest and it felt like a chore. I know I know, DNF! But I need to dnf audio in the first hour, when I am half way through I push on which I know realise is a mistake.
Very disappointed