Sign in with Facebook
10 Historical Romance Heroines Who Don't Need Saving
Regular readers of romance know that the genre is currently chock-full of fresh plotlines and heroines who save themselves (and sometimes the hero, too). Historical romances are no exception, with releases in recent years emphasizing characters with professions and attitudes that challenge or change the social conventions of their times.
In other words, today's historical heroines aren't just heiresses or debutantes waiting to marry the perfect duke. They're more like the real women who've been living, and making, history all along.
For Women's History Month, we rounded up ten recent-ish historical romances that showcase just how cool the genre's leading ladies are. With a variety of actually period-accurate jobs, these heroines are far more likely to swear or spy than swoon in corsets. Don't forget to add any titles that catch your eye to your Want to Read shelf!
In other words, today's historical heroines aren't just heiresses or debutantes waiting to marry the perfect duke. They're more like the real women who've been living, and making, history all along.
For Women's History Month, we rounded up ten recent-ish historical romances that showcase just how cool the genre's leading ladies are. With a variety of actually period-accurate jobs, these heroines are far more likely to swear or spy than swoon in corsets. Don't forget to add any titles that catch your eye to your Want to Read shelf!
Who is she? Violet Waterfield—widowed countess by day, secret scientist by night
You should read this book if you like: Friends-to-lovers, slow-burn romance, plant genetics, female researchers getting the credit they're due
You should read this book if you like: Friends-to-lovers, slow-burn romance, plant genetics, female researchers getting the credit they're due
Who is she? Elle Burns—undercover spy for the Union Army during the American Civil War
You should read this book if you like: Suspenseful situations, disguises, spies, oppressed people rising up against their oppressors, complex interracial romance
You should read this book if you like: Suspenseful situations, disguises, spies, oppressed people rising up against their oppressors, complex interracial romance
Who is she? Annabelle Archer—one of the first female students admitted to Oxford in the 1870s, determined suffragette
You should read this book if you like: Women's rights, women's education, Parliamental politics, haughty dukes getting humbled by love
You should read this book if you like: Women's rights, women's education, Parliamental politics, haughty dukes getting humbled by love
Who is she? Garrett Gibson, MD—Victorian England's only female physician
You should read this book if you like: Scotland Yard detectives, women breaking professional barriers, heroines who save the heroes
You should read this book if you like: Scotland Yard detectives, women breaking professional barriers, heroines who save the heroes
Who is she? Lucy Muchelney—aspiring astronomer and French translator
You should read this book if you like: Regency romances, women loving women, constellations, the politics of translation
You should read this book if you like: Regency romances, women loving women, constellations, the politics of translation
Who is she? Valinda Lacey—teacher of freedmen in Reconstruction New Orleans
You should read this book if you like: Women who dare to do great things, men who talk about their feelings, feeding white supremacists to alligators
You should read this book if you like: Women who dare to do great things, men who talk about their feelings, feeding white supremacists to alligators
Who is she? Emilia Cruz—pseudonymous author of scandalous serial romances
You should read this book if you like: Enemies-to-lovers, dueling authors, the Spanish Caribbean, romance novels about romance novels
You should read this book if you like: Enemies-to-lovers, dueling authors, the Spanish Caribbean, romance novels about romance novels
Who is she? Li Feng—sword dancer
You should read this book if you like: Tang dynasty–era China; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; opposites attracting; rooftop chase scenes
You should read this book if you like: Tang dynasty–era China; Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; opposites attracting; rooftop chase scenes
Who is she? Mamie Greene—humanitarian
You should read this book if you like: The Gilded Age, New York City, robbing the rich to give to the poor, self-made men
You should read this book if you like: The Gilded Age, New York City, robbing the rich to give to the poor, self-made men
Who is she? Lady Georgiana—incognito owner of the most notorious gambling den in London
You should read this book if you like: Women disguising themselves as men, women running businesses, women taking big chances on love
You should read this book if you like: Women disguising themselves as men, women running businesses, women taking big chances on love
Who are your favorite historical romance heroines with interesting jobs? Let's talk books in the comments!
Check out more recent articles, including:
The Most Anticipated Romances of March
Lisa Kleypas Talks Changing Trends in Romance
Meet Today's Rising Stars of Romance
Check out more recent articles, including:
The Most Anticipated Romances of March
Lisa Kleypas Talks Changing Trends in Romance
Meet Today's Rising Stars of Romance
Comments Showing 51-69 of 69 (69 new)
date
newest »
newest »
Adam said, "Eve, get away from that tree!"Eve said, "You're not the boss of me!"
We've been talking about this for a long time.
Sagar wrote: "... You don't go reading 'Gone with the wind' and judge it according to today's value system.A work of art must be judged in the backdrop of it's times(unless of course,it's a utopian/dystopian novel) And do we really need to have these conversations?..."Whilst I agree in general with the sentiment of your comment, you lost me early on. The argument for 'judging works according to today's value system' is really misleading and whenever I come across it I always sigh big and find my eyes rolling uncontrollably. And not because I have any sort of physical affliction (!) but because of how very immoral that argument is and very annoyed I get about it. Certain ways of thinking, behaving and acting towards other human beings that are much more 'unpopular' now (but are still unfortunately much more rife and than many would lead us to believe ) were and always have been wrong, no matter when time period or place. Just because certain sectors of 'society' deemed it right, just and acceptable did not actually make it so. And it is well documented in many different regions of the world that certain laws were made up just to propagate various biases and to maintain the stolen status quo.
Personally, if I should choose to read something such as the example you mentioned above (which I have absolutely no interest in wasting my time on), I would judge it on human values (as per above)... and from what I understand from a good many people, there is extremely flawed and utterly warped versions of both male and female humanity of any times flowing through the veins of that one from start to finish.
Also, I think that any 'work of art' worth it's salt should stand up during the backdrop of any period in time, not just that in which it was written.
And lastly, yes we do need to continue having these conversations because they are still more than relevant and certainly over the last few years are seeming to become even more so all over again.
I have never been able to read GWTW because it was then is now always will be racist, I cannot care for the romance, I do not agree with previous comments that this is just 'of its era' appropriate: it never was, any more than typical misogyny of much current literature- not alone rape-glorifying historical romances... but in the interest of broadening my reading, I will try many of these books, I have read and enjoyed An Extraordinary Union...
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."Thank you soo much for saying this its an epidemic..The new cool.
You are spot on .TYSM.
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."I can see that happening. It's a thing in YA that all the female leads have to be strong and independent. As long as the plot and characters are interesting (characters having their own ambitions and interests) I'm for strong male leads, strong female leads, or both.
I’m going to have a lot of books to read when I’m older 😂 nice selection!
That's a great list! I noted to check out most of them.
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."I don't see the like button. So.. LIKE!
Same thoughts and questions going through my head. Maybe not so much regarding romance novels .. but I do enjoy biographical novels even though "they're full of stuff that didn't really happen".
Off topic, but - sometimes in music one feels like there are genres/artists one should implicitly dislike (simply because they are not worth it..?) or admit to like them while providing a double-spaced argumentative essay in justification of one's 'questionable' taste.
Perhaps this also depends on our environment, who do we share our tastes with. I used to have many educated and classics-oriented musicians around. Wouldn't make a pop-concert crowd. :)
Let me be the judge to all these comment while I reply in a month time
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."Fair, but I think that sometimes, you need other kinds of romances that are more feminist, to see how that kind of love would play out. I agree that the shame is bad, but I think new dynamics is good. Besides, as someone with little interest in the dominance dynamic myself, but who likes good cheese, these are totally w/in my niche.
Katsuro wrote: "Janet wrote: "Would you allow me to post this on my website – crediting you, of course ?"Sure, go right ahead!"
Thanks a lot!!!
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."This is interesting, and I agree to a certain extent. I don't like helpless heroines that sit around doing nothing, because nobody likes a useless protagonist with no goals in life, but I agree that not every woman needs to be bold, independent, and domineering just to be on equal footing with a man. (And if she is, that's great, and there's a lot to admire in that. But it doesn't mean being shy/quiet equals not being a strong woman).
I've only read one book on this list, Hello Stranger, but I seriously loved it. The main character, Garrett, is intelligent and independent and does basically save her love interest at some point, but she is also feminine, romantic, and often protected by Ransom (who saves her too, in a different way). She's the perfect model of a driven woman with her own career and goals who isn't domineering, because she enjoys Ransom's strengths as much as her own, which are just as valuable.
Highly recommend if you want a couple that's on equal footing (it's not some lord with huge power over a servant girl) who are also intensely romantic with one another and enjoy tradition as well, which in a historical romance especially, means that Ransom seems a sense of responsibility in protecting Garrett (which she reciprocates).
You don't have to sacrifice a strong leading man to have an independent female lead!
I love R-rated YA and NA wrote: "kittykat wrote: " I, unlike many romance readers, really appreciate much more realistic characters."I see your point and sorry, I disagree. Strongly. In my humble opinion, romance authors say they..."
I haven't been following this conversation, but I just wanted to let you know that I love the first three books you recommended (I adore Laura Thalassa and Amy Harmon), which means I trust your book recommendations and am adding those other 3 to my to-read shelf now. Thanks for the recommendations! I'd love to hear any more you might have.
For me, the issue isn't that the hero is dominant and that the heroine needs saving. It's more that the heroines are often portrayed as week, meek, naive and afraid of their own shadows. That became the trope somehow and it carries forward into contemporary romance as well.I remember watching the Princess Bride when I was around 12 years old. Some of my friends wanted the idea of being the beautiful damsel in distress with the strong, smart, witty man taking care of them. I wanted to be a strong, smart, witty woman who, if I couldn't get out of the situation on my own, wouldn't just stand by screaming and crying while that wonderful man was attacked by a wild animal.
I can see a writer going along with what's popular in order to get published, but then looking back and cringing at what they were producing because they never liked it to begin with/they've evolved in their thinking of what makes a strong hero.
As someone else wrote, recognizing that there is a real audience for strong heroines is not a knock on people who want the traditional. Just a recognition that not everyone has the same fantasies.
Gone with the Wind was a troublesome book when it was written. People at that time (among them, you know, the children of slaves and the black people still being persecuted and denied basic human rights by a white majority) took issue with the romanticizing the cruelty of the system that the book looks back on.Scarlett O'Hara is considered a strong, flawed character. The woman did not need saving and that was hard for the hero (and those around her) even though her strength is what kept them all going. She matured from a spoiled, feckless girl into a capable and resilient woman. Audiences that weren't horrified by the whitewashing of life in the antebellum South, liked Scarlett for this reason.
In the 1930s women, who lacked the basic freedoms of men, ate up the idea of a beautiful, smart, glamorous woman that could match and often best a man. That wasn't "pitting men against women" but recognizing that the stereotype of women as helpless damsels in distress and men as saviors of the world was just that - a stereotype that did not take into account the bravery, strength and wisdom of women.
Scarlett doesn't save Rhett and he doesn't save her. But you do get the idea that it's Scarlett's strength of character (rather than being meek and hiding away) that will ensure that she gets Rhett back at the end of the book.
The book is a feminist masterpiece, really. So doesn't actually hold up any of your argument.
Lindy wrote: "Gone with the Wind was a troublesome book when it was written. People at that time (among them, you know, the children of slaves and the black people still being persecuted and denied basic human rights by a white majority) took issue with the romanticizing the cruelty of the system that the book looks back on..."Thank you. So many people continue even now to ignore or even argue this point.
Lindy wrote: "... The book is a feminist masterpiece, really. ..."
Such a shame that it's wrapped up in uber racism, even given 'it's time'. I'd read it if not for that.
Katsuro wrote: "Is it just me, or do articles about modern romance novels with strong, independent heroines sometimes seem to be *ashamed* of the old stereotypical romance novels? (Not necessarily talking about th..."I actually like what you said. I agree. I think it's fine to like to read those types of books and it doesn't mean anything bad. I don't think we should be ashamed and it's a shame that so many people do.
Every generation has it's own struggles,boundaries and trailblazers.You don't go reading 'Gone with the wind' and judge it according to today's value system.A work of art must be judged in the backdrop of it's times(unless of course,it's a utopian/dystopian novel) And do we really need to have these conversations? Should men & women compete on who can 'save' who.If it's a woman who saves then it's ok but if a man does it then it's sexist.That's not the world we want to live in.People have feelings for each other,a sense of love & care towards each other.It depends on the situation who saves who.It could be as trivial as a normal conversation after having a shizzy day at work.You don't always need to use punches,kicks & guns to 'save' people.I would really appreciate if conversations move from this non-sensical urge to pit men & women against each other to how they could co-exist and grow together(assuming they weren't doing this earlier) There are a lot of healthy relationships too,you know.Not every guy goes "Hey,I am a white man.I have privilege,now do my bidding" Wish we talked about them too.