Does it drive anyone else crazy that readers will use “Regency” to describe almost any HR?

[Patti]

While the Regency genre is one of the most popular in historical romance, and certainly my favorite, HR can take place at any point in history. The Regency era is a very specific time period (approx. 1810-1820), but I am constantly reading reviews for books that are set in the Georgian or Victorian periods that will blithely refer to them as regencies. The book I just finished took place in 1761, and yet it received the misnomer by a couple of reviewers, at least. I guess it’s one of those things that the more I notice it, the more I can’t help but notice it, and it’s getting under my skin!

[Leena]

I agree. Regency us now synonymous with any historical romance. But its not only the readers who need to be blamed. Writers too don't bother to correct them in hope of more readers. Also with all the new "historical " Writers the essence of the period is completely missing. the plots are very modern unthinkable in those times so its fair game here l 0

[Leena]

hey just to continue this conversation I just finished reading Abigail Agar's book Secrets of a Fair Lady. the author claims it to be a Regency Romance but this book's hero is a police inspector. The police was introduced introduced only in 1829 close to 8 yrs after Regency period ended. So why blame readers alone?

[lorii (Loriidae)]

Quite! I am always amused, while at the same time, I shake my head when a book is shelved both Regency and Victorian.

And major things like the police force aren't that hard to research. Also Gaelen Foley had a zooligist from the university of Australia in 1820 when Australia was 30 years old and barely more than a rough penal colony. That one really made my eyes roll!

Kelly Bowen is one author who for me makes modern solutions for situations like domestic violence plausible. But she is in the minority.

Distance is another, it took days rather than hours to get anywhere, with horses. Roads just weren't good enough.

It's the modern language that usually annoys me. I tend to give authors a bit of leeway, say maybe 1835 for regency period, but a heroine with bangs, or the hero feeding her mac and cheese (both of which I have seen in a supposed Regency) really grate.

[Leena]

seriously? I need to read this one now? mac n cheese during the recency wow!

But I agree the language really jars. I'd read one where the mcs sounded like my teenage daughter and her friends in conversation.

[🐝 Shaz 🐝]

I tend to ignore some comments I know are historically wrong. But some are annoying.
I prefer it when a book starts with the place and year at the beginning of a book. So I know what time period I am reading. It's annoying when you have to try to sort it out for yourself. While reading the story.

[Leena]

I believe authors nowadays just throw around words to indicate Historical settings. authentication is completely lacking.

[Debby *BabyDee*]

@Leena...I have to agree with your statement. If you are a tentative reader, things like that just pop out on the page and you have to wonder or shake your head.

[Leena]

and since mostof us are very serious committed Historical Romance readers it 's insulting and demeaning to us.

[lorii (Loriidae)]

Leena, Totally agree. I hadn't looked at it from that point of view before.

[lorii (Loriidae)]

Many years ago, Stephanie Laurens released an historical fact sheet and her reasoning for going with or stretching historically correct facts.

One great example, was button through shirts, which weren't around in Regency times, and she had been chided by her readers. Her response was sorry, but there are only a couple of ways a man can physicallly pull his shirt over his head and that severely limited the way she wrote love scenes, so her heroes all wear button through shirts.

[Joanna Loves Reading, Bluestocking of HR novels]

Interesting discussion. It does bother me some, but I do think the regency era counts up to 1837, which is when Victoria’s reign began. Or at the very least to 1830 when king George IV died. I am ok with the start being 1795ish, which I have seen, and that’s when George married Caroline. It’s more reflective of societal norms of the time and George IV being influential, rather than bound by the exact dates of the regent’s reign as regent. Anyways that’s my two cents.

[Leena]

Im ok too with the author taking leeway with the dates the period ranges. What I absolutely will not accept is the inaccurate descriptions of social norms, language used, food and clothing appropriate to the period. Artistic liberates is an aspect but how much liberty should an author take? In one book she's developed the

[Leena]

entire police force when it wasn't even existent. Then we have an Earl wearing is own shoes and sling te heroine to dinner at the local Inn. It is a well known fact that nobility d work done for them. Plus intermingling of exes was a complete no-no. So what authenticity are we to expect? Then one as those plots where the woman was a mathematician/ astronomer. Women were given such limited education that the above is impossible.

[Cath]

I agree generally with the comments about the limited education women received, but Ada Lovelace would be an exception. She was the daughter of Lord Byron and did receive an education in mathematics. She is credited with having written the first computer program, based on a sequence of extensive mathematical calculations. So I suppose an HR writer who was aware of Lovelace might be writing a story based off the inspiration of Lovelace?

Anyway, enjoying this conversation very much. I'm so ignorant about historical details of the every day lives of those living during various historical periods, that it's fun to hear about things I never knew, or never even thought about!

[Leena]

@Cath actually no te authors aren't basing their heroines on Ada Lovelace. I wish they had. Recently I read a historical called Alwats the Bluestocking. Its set around Regency period 1817 . The heroine Mariah is passionate about gaining an education. Its an impressive book coz it highlights the humiliation she endures during the process. Even the hero is caught in a dilemma and is unclear how to support her publicly. That was worth a read.

[Cath]

Leena, that does sound like a good historical. Adding it to my list!

[Kathy]

I will add [image error] Always the Bridesmaid, Never the Bride https://amzn.to/34CO93q as an entertaining and good read by the same author.

[Cath]

^ ooh that does sound good! adding another to the list :)

[Patti]

Regency style dress is a big indicator/factor for me, which is why I can't totally get behind the time frame going into the 1820's or '30's, but I'm willing to overlook it.

I read a book once that took place in the court of Henry VIII, and I seriously read a review that talked about how it took place in the "1800's" and how surprised she was that the author actually went through with having Anne Boleyn executed in the story! It made me think, she didn't realize it was based on actual events!

I do go back and forth on how "historically accurate" I want my romance novel to be, though. While I also hate wild inaccuracies, I have a feeling that if it's super accurate, it won't be much fun! Life for women was pretty terrible back then, so I like situations where the heroine can break out of traditional roles.

[lorii (Loriidae)]

Patti wrote: "... While I also hate wild inaccuracies, I have a feeling that if it's super accurate, it won't be much fun. Life for women was pretty terrible back then, so I like situations where the heroine can break out of traditional roles."

Patti, you make an excellent point. If anyone is interested in murder mysteries, C.S. Harris does a brilliant job with Regency reality, but they are grim, dark and very gritty, because by and large they are historically accurate.

[Mariana]

What frustrates me is when the author does not specify a year, and I am trying to identify a specific era for the RATA challenge. I go by lists and shelves but find them to be unreliable. I think Regency and Victorian are the ones most frequently mislabeled/interchanged.

Also, there are tons of books labeled for a war - American Revolution, American Civil War, WWI, WWII - that are actually set right before or after with no years overlapping the actual war.

[Leena]

i keep wondering the role of an editor. Aren't they supposed to keep a check on the discrepancies?

[Patti]

Loriidae wrote: "Patti wrote: "... While I also hate wild inaccuracies, I have a feeling that if it's super accurate, it won't be much fun. Life for women was pretty terrible back then, so I like situations where t..."

Oh, I adore the Sebastian St. Cyr mysteries! They are fantastic, and yes, they focus on a lot of history and showcase the grittier side of life in Regency London.

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

Throwing my 2 cents in here. I think writing historically accurate romances for current readers is hard as what is acceptable to todays audience. Women were often married at 17 and not educated except in needlework painting and reading. There were no cures for many diseases. Childbirth could be fatal as handwashing wasn't common. Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders: A Writer's (and Editor's) Guide to Keeping Historical Fiction Free of Common Anachronisms, Errors, and Myths
Fun fact book

[Kathy]

Always the Chaperone, Never the Bride is free right now.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0861TL2J2

[Susan in Perthshire]

I find it very frustrating when authors simply ignore historical authenticity entirely and transpose 21st century characters, norms and behaviours into a fictitious historical setting. There are authors I enjoy who do that kind of thing well because they are presenting historical fantasy - Tessa Dare is a splendid example. But even she attempts to run a thread of historical authenticity through the fantasy. Many don't even bother pretending that they are trying!

There are also authors who do their research and present an authentic view of the period whilst still creating characters who might still be interesting to a 21st century audience. I would include Georgette Heyer, Mary Balogh and Stella Riley amongst such authors.

Describing books set in 1760 as Regency is totally inaccurate and always an indicator of how seriously, (or not) an author is going to treat authenticity. Historically, the Regency was a very specific period covering the time the Prince of Wales was authorised to act as regent for his sick father. Once he dies and the Prince became George IV - the Regency ended.

As other have said, it is clear that many authors have done not an iota of research, talking about police forces, women at university, women divorcing husbands etc etc - decades before any of these things were a reality. Clearly many readers do not care one bit about history - they just want a fantasy romance but it does make me wonder about the understanding some people have of how history changed lives and made us what we are today. (sorry, rant over!)
I know when I have commented on historical errors, many reader respond as if I have uttered blasphemy against their favoured author so generally (except in groups like this), I have given up commenting!

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I absolutely understand what you are saying.

[Susan in Perthshire]

Merry Jewelhound wrote: "I absolutely understand what you are saying."

Thank you! 😉

[🐝 Shaz 🐝]

I know what you mean Susan.
When I am reading some books, I often think this is not historically correct .
You would think that authors, would research the main points of history before putting them into a book 📖
Most people who don’t know historical facts would not notice theses mistakes, just use history buffs will notice. 😉😂

[Leena]

I totally agree Susan and it angers me. I just drop those books instantly. And nowadays they aren't even maintaining corrrect social norms forget historical correctness.

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I also enjoy history. I find how social mores change and that is why some books don't hold up well to todays standards. A books description or wording that was normal during the era it was written...but language or actions are now considered unacceptable.
I wonder how many average readers are aware when historical facts are incorrect.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Yes, it does make me nuts too.

It also drives me nuts that ppl call Gone with the Wind a romance. It is HF. This book was never a romance. If anything, it's a tragedy (though not intended by the author to be a tragedy!).

[Leena]

Im questioning the role of the editors - do they really play any possible role in aiding the author or are they glorified "yes" men?

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I guess the main thing is to sell the book. I read books about Dukes all of the time. That just aren't that many Dukes lol but every publisher wants the story to be about a handsome duke.

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I just started watching "Love Between the Covers" its on Amazon from 2016? It has probably been discussed before but I just read about it. So will let you know what I think of the Documentary.

[Mariana]

Merry Jewelhound wrote: "I just started watching "Love Between the Covers" its on Amazon from 2016? It has probably been discussed before but I just read about it. So will let you know what I think of the Documentary."

Thank you for mentioning this. I am going to check it out too.

[Susan in Perthshire]

Leena wrote: "Im questioning the role of the editors - do they really play any possible role in aiding the author or are they glorified "yes" men?"

In my experience, many of the books which are flawed in this way are self published - so no editor.

In the case of some traditionally published writers, if the readers don’t care and the books still sell - why would editors care? Sorry to sound cynical but I do feel that money will be the driving force and I guess I have to try and understand that!

[Susan in Perthshire]

Shaz wrote: "I know what you mean Susan.
When I am reading some books, I often think this is not historically correct .
You would think that authors, would research the main points of history before putting th..."

Totally agree!

[Susan in Perthshire]

Leena wrote: "I totally agree Susan and it angers me. I just drop those books instantly. And nowadays they aren't even maintaining corrrect social norms forget historical correctness."

Yes it’s the total lack of understanding about what those times were like which is so frustrating. Women had no rights, no power and once married were virtually the property of their husbands. Marital rape was seen as normal and part of a husband’s rights. You can’t whitewash that situation and pretend women had the same rights as today. 😉

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

It is a common theme for widows not to want to remarry as to be able to be their own person and not their husbands property. I do enjoy the Victorian era as woman are starting to work towards the vote and the industrial revolution. But that is well away from Regency lol.

[Debby *BabyDee*]

Merry Jewelhound wrote: "I just started watching "Love Between the Covers" its on Amazon from 2016? It has probably been discussed before but I just read about it. So will let you know what I think of the Documentary."

This documentary was very good and I didn't think it was on Amazon. Will have to watch again. Goes to show you how much the romance industry is a all time big hit among books sells. You will like it Merry...may see some of your fav authors.😊

[Debby *BabyDee*]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Leena wrote: "I totally agree Susan and it angers me. I just drop those books instantly. And nowadays they aren't even maintaining corrrect social norms forget historical correctness."

Yes it’s th..."

Liked...and you are correct. I have to agree with your "rant" which really isn't. What you said should make us wonder if the author is truly and intentially writing to engage the reader into their works or if they are solely out for the buck. Disappointing when you place more on the buck than your writing integrity to want the reader to love your work and you as an author.

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I am about 15 min into it and am already going I've read her books and hers and hers. Also there is a certain amount of teasing that I have always taken for reading romance. I can read murder mysteries and people think you are smart. Read a romance and you are just a silly girl.

[Jan]

Merry Jewelhound wrote: "I am about 15 min into it and am already going I've read her books and hers and hers. Also there is a certain amount of teasing that I have always taken for reading romance. I can read murder mysteries and people think you are smart. Read a romance and you are just a silly girl."

So true, sadly Merry. Times are changing, but romance and historical romance are still looked down on as low-quality literature. And of course some of it is. As in any genre. the quality varies enormously. But romance makes people happy, and it's consistently the biggest selling genre in the world.

I must see whether I can track down that doco. Sounds interesting.

[Joanna Loves Reading, Bluestocking of HR novels]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I know when I have commented on historical errors, many reader respond as if I have uttered blasphemy against their favoured author so generally (except in groups like this), I have given up commenting..."

You’re in the right place. That’s why groups like this exist, in part, at least. We don’t all agree but it’s fun to discuss!

[Merry in and out for the next few days]

I finished the Documentary. It mainly was clips of authors and what it takes to write and be published. I found it very informative.

[Joanna Loves Reading, Bluestocking of HR novels]

OMG Merry! I just started the documentary and thanks so much for bringing it to our attention. Found it on Prime.

[🐝 Shaz 🐝]

I will have a look for this program over the weekend. Sounds interesting.

[Lauren]

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "There are authors I enjoy who do that kind of thing well because they are presenting historical fantasy - Tessa Dare is a splendid example. .."

It is interesting that you mention Tessa Dare here. I really enjoy her books and the way she weaves fantasy with the historical elements. That said, her writing is rather anachronistic. I just finished The Wallflower Wager and her obvious attempt to include issues of consent are actually painful. I understand the need for including this in books written today, but it has come at the expense of believability.