As anyone who reads my Amazon reviews knows, I’m a great fan of Regency-era romances. When these are done well, they’re a joy to read. Authors such as Mary Balogh, Jo Beverley, Jean Ross Ewing and, some of the time, Edith Layton get all of it right: settings I can visualise, charismatic characters who get inside my head and refuse to leave, haunting or entertaining premises and - for me this is crucial - historical accuracy.
I’m not talking about every single detail of dates, places, people who really lived at the time. Nor do I have a problem with an author shifting the date of a minor battle in the war against Napoleon, as some do for convenience of plot, or referring to a song, dance, novel etc of the era which wasn’t actually around until a year or two after the date of the book’s setting. That’s a writer knowingly taking liberties for artistic reasons, and the best authors will say so in a note at the end of the book.
What really irritates me is when authors make mistakes which could be avoided if they would just do some simple research. I’m now extremely reluctant to pick up Regencies by authors new to me, because I’ve been burned so many times. On page 1 I could find a title completely misused. At the end of the first chapter maybe the heroine just walks out to visit the hero’s house - no chaperone in sight, no-one wonders where she’s going and the hero’s staff doesn’t bat an eyelid when an unaccompanied female arrives and asks to see the master of the house. Or maybe by the end of chapter two hero and heroine, who didn’t even know each other at the start of the book, are calling each other by first names. None of which is correct for the period.
And there’s lots more besides. Now, I realise that England is a small country. Not much bigger than many US states, and considerably smaller than some. But, still, considering that horses tend at most to be able to travel about sixteen miles an hour - and that’s not when pulling a heavy carriage - would it not occur to an author that travelling from London to north Derbyshire and back, a round-trip journey of some five hundred miles, is simply not possible in an afternoon?
And don’t even get me started on anachronistic language...! I still remember the novel in which the hero had ‘biscuits’ - ie, those strange American things that look like scones - for breakfast. I’m jerked totally out of the story by the heroine ‘fixing’ her hair, or the hero ‘writing’ a friend. Or someone giving directions and using 'blocks'. Characters who sound modern as opposed to nineteenth-century - and, worse still, modern American instead of English - just don’t fit in Regency novels.
But right now my biggest bugbear is the ‘missing heir’ plotline. These seem to be a staple of some Regency-era novels. I can see the appeal: a chance to introduce a different, perhaps troublesome, character into the mix of an established family, set in its ways and secure in the knowledge that nothing will change for generations to come. Suddenly a man they never knew, who perhaps had a far more conventional upbringing - perhaps even, heaven forbid, in the
colonies! - turns up and is heir to the title. And trouble ensues. Things get stirred up. Instant conflict.
That all works... until suddenly it’s revealed to the reader that the missing heir is actually descended through the female line. He’s the grandson of the late Earl’s daughter, perhaps. Right.
Let’s get this straight. Like it or not - and I never said that the rules of the nobility were not extremely sexist, old-fashioned, anachronistic and anything else you like -
titles pass through the male line only, unless there is some provision in the original creation of the title for it to pass through the female line. And that’s
extremely rare. It happens in the case of the royal family, but that’s an exception. Even today, despite moves to introduce legislation to change it, titles may only pass via sons and other male relatives and descendants.
So if our Earl had only daughters, it wouldn’t matter a thing whether any of those daughters had a son. The title would pass to the Earl’s brother, male cousin (son of the Earl’s
father’s brother), or some other distant relation through the male line.
Remember Pride and Prejudice? It was a source of great dismay to the Bennetts that Mr and Mrs Bennett only had daughters, because their home and lands would pass to Mr Collins on Mr Bennett’s death. Three of the Bennett daughters are married by the end of the novel, but that makes absolutely no difference to the situation as regards inheritance. The reason the Bennett girls need to marry well is that there is no guarantee that all five girls and Mrs Bennett will be adequately provided for when Mr Collins inherits.
Even more ridiculous is the secret bastard heir story. Our Earl dies leaving no legitimate heir. So the title passes to his illegitimate son by a long-ago mistress. I’ve read at least two books with that plot-line, and I’m sure there are plenty more out there. And, once I discover the truth about the hero’s situation (our bastard heir), I’m just about ready to throw the book across the room. I mean,
what? It’s just not possible. It’s not even a question of what our dying Earl wishes. He can leave any money, property, anything else he wishes to anyone he wishes (apart from any property which is entailed, that is, property which legally has to pass to the legitimate heir to the title). But titles cannot pass to illegitimate offspring.
(Then there’s the whole question of - in those times! - an illegitimate offspring actually being accepted by the aristocracy, being invited to parties, allowed to join clubs and so on... this was one of the most exclusive, snobbish social circles which ever existed).
When it comes to writing any novel, but most especially anything using a specialist setting, whether historical or something else, there is simply
no substitute for doing research. If you don’t do it, it shows. I’m no expert in Regency manners, culture, history, titles and social settings, but I’m an interested and fairly knowledgeable amateur. If I can spot mistakes a mile off, then those are mistakes that can easily be avoided. And they’re the sign of a truly lazy author.