Sandy Beck
From sorrow to something more. Will Fitz fall in love in the next three months or will he become richer by 100 pounds I suspect we will have our answer by the end of this delightful book. I did not like Margot and Alice I thought Margot was a bit rude to her mother’s guest. I understand her feelings it may put her in a better mood but it was not nice. Then there is a twist I had not expected it appears some unknown force is working behind the scenes. Now I got all of that in the first five chapters but gang there is so much more to read and enjoy. As the story continues Margot becomes more impressive. This was a good book with great characters that I am happy to recommend. I did receive a free copy of this book and voluntarily chose to review it.
Marie Bourgery
Margot and her sister Alice made me think of bullies in the beginning of the book the way they tormented Lord and Lady Gresham because he jilted their friend. If I were Miss Dawes I wouldn't want to be married to a man who merely tolerated me while he was in love with someone else and she accepted that, but her friends did not. I also thought it was cruel of Margot to tease Alice with awful names for her unborn child if she won their bet. That child shouldn't have to suffer for their actions. Fitz kept saying he couldn't marry a widow and especially one with a titled son even if he had feelings for, but that he would have to marry soon. He talks about helping out the poor and all the laws he wants to pass in Parliament, but it seemed like he wanted a wife without children who could focus on him. Margot was brave standing up to give her voice and working to negotiate with the angry weavers rather than condemn them like her father and steward. There were some funny moments in the book and I loved Margot's precocious children. There were a lot of political references in this steamy historical romance.
Jamie Brydone-Jack
Started Off Well, But Then... I had enjoyed the first book in this series, liking the humor and interplay between the couple. I was so hoping to like this book, and in fact, I actually did for the bulk of it. The author managed to imbue the story with humor, especially on the hero’s part. I like the idea that both the hero and the heroine had separate wagers, his to do with romance and hers to do with her low spirits. There were parts of the book before the later, bigger issues that bothered me. I didn't like the way the heroine and her sister acted so immaturely for quite a lot of a book. Seriously, these are two grown women, one with two children and the other with one on the way. Why would they act like they do, like bratty schoolchildren… and not for just one scene, but sustained? The heroine seemed wishy-washy in her feelings towards her departed husband. She admitted several times they had fallen out of love nearly just after the honeymoon and he ignored her and belittled her, yet she still has this grief after his sudden passing. Or she vacillates between grief and anger. (Honestly, I didn’t see where all this anger came from; not attractive in a Regency heroine.) While I understand that someone could have conflicted feelings, the author didn't seem to really give them much distinction or explain why she had such an odd response. As it wasn't truly key to her character or the romance, the author just should have picked one way and went with it! Honestly, I never really bought that she was truly grieving, nor should she have been, really, given what her husband and marriage were like. I also thought it was odd that the hero mentioned several times that he couldn't marry her because she was a dowager countess with two small children, including her dead husband’s heir. Please! As if men didn't marry widowed women with children back in Regency times! The young heir would have his own lands and fortune as dictated in the marriage settlement and his father's will. Seriously, how complicated is that? I also thought it was odd how the heroine kept talking about railroads. This takes place in Regency, though I don't think that the author specified a year, but if it's true Regency, then it’s between 1811 and 1820. At that time, there were very few railroads and even fewer of what we would consider being real railroads. Horses drew some first ones over a track! Railroads didn't truly come into their own until the 1830s. So I don't think this would have been much of a consideration for her. I also didn't quite buy all the feminism in this. Again, we're talking Regency times. While there certainly were some women who aspired for more, the stance was not popular back then. But the bigger issues happened toward the end. Even though the discussion of the Luddites had occurred off and on through the book, what actually happened at her country home seemed to come out of nowhere. But what I'm most disliked was how the hero treated the heroine immediately after their first intimate encounter. It's made completely no sense to me whatsoever. I had liked him up to that point as a hero, but that moment completely ruined it for me. How could he speak to her like that? Romantic heroes shouldn't think that way, let alone speak to the heroine like that. I just about threw my Kindle in frustration. I had a very hard time sticking with the rest of the story, to be honest, and I never warmed to him again. So, all in all, I found this to be a very disappointing book after a promising start. I received a free copy of this book, but that did not affect my review.
