AAR

[dick]

to Schola: Mmm! Recalcitrant characters? Brings to mind Pirandello and Six Characters in Search of an Author, doesn't it? Or Milton, maybe, and all his trouble with Satan's free will? However, were I Beverley or Kleypas, I'd certainly scotch that in the bud.

to maggieb: I agree. The HEA is not meant to accord with reality. It is, in fact, the most fantastic of the inescapable elements in romance fiction. It's halcyon happiness which, per some authors, not even death can infringe upon. It might even be argued that it's exactly the apparent impossibility that the HEA will be "ever after" that makes it an HEA.

[Kass]

I truly believe there is no way that Lucy in On the Way to the Wedding would ever be faithful. She is portrayed as utterly spineless and willing to f_ck and forget Gregory over a real non-problem. It's one of the few romances where, when I heard how many kids she had, I wondered who else had sired some of them. There's no happily ever after with someone who can't stand up for herself when it counts.
_________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

My blog: http://www.thoughts.com/allergywoman/blog
http://www.shelfari.com/o1517440994

[willaful]

The strength of Nicholas and Eleanor's marriage comes up frequently in subsequent "Rogue" books. Maybe she's still trying to convince you?
_________________
"I say, don't read the classics -- try to discover your own classics; every life has its own." -- Rudolf Flesch, _How to Make Sense_

[Maysa]

[Schola]

[MarianneM]

Reading through this thread, I think that many of you are forgetting that romantic love within marriage is a fairly recent concept, probably invented and intensified by cheerful, optimistic Americans, who think that all happiness, all ecstasy should be permanent within a relationship.

As far as historical times are concerned, marriages in most Western countries were, first and foremost, dynastic business arrangements, to which each party brought something the other party wanted. Generally, the men wanted to marry well and have an heir and a spare and maybe more to continue the blood line. The women wanted to marry men with wealth who would keep them comfortable, allow them nice allowances and pretty houses in return for bearing their children and seeing to it that home life stayed on an even keel. Sure, at the beginning there was supposed to be some pleasant "slap and tickle" for a month [the honeymoon] or even a few more. But the rose-colored glasses soon got clouded. And that was all right as long as each party lived up to his/her promises.

This sounds cynical -- but it's realistic. Romantic love may have been conceived of in Eleanor of Acquitane's time. But it was never conceived of as happening in marriage. That's an American invention, I think.

There were individual marriages in various countries which did involve real and lasting love. But they were the exception, not the rule.

As an aside, I'm 80 years old and probably the oldest living witness on this discussion board as to how things were in America of the 1930s and 1940s. Mistresses were not as common as some poster above implied that they were. Certainly, there have always been mistresses hanging around on the outskirts of society, but the number of faithful husbands in 1940 was probably greater than the number there are today. Since my first husband died two years after our marriage, I had both the time and the curiosity to observe closely the changes in our society between 1940 and 2008. Believe me, the changes were huge. If you're interested, ask me and I'll tell you.

MarianneM

[Kass]

I honestly don't see how anyone can like the Beverley, still. Sure, it's different, but it's different by being homophobic and unloving and unromantic. I don't like those kinds of difference. ::shrug:: Clearly yet another book for which I am not the audience.
_________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

My blog: http://www.thoughts.com/allergywoman/blog
http://www.shelfari.com/o1517440994

[Schola]

[Susan/DC]

[xina]

As an aside, I'm 80 years old and probably the oldest living witness on this discussion board as to how things were in America of the 1930s and 1940s. Mistresses were not as common as some poster above implied that they were. Certainly, there have always been mistresses hanging around on the outskirts of society, but the number of faithful husbands in 1940 was probably greater than the number there are today. Since my first husband died two years after our marriage, I had both the time and the curiosity to observe closely the changes in our society between 1940 and 2008. Believe me, the changes were huge. If you're interested, ask me and I'll tell you.

MarianneM[/quote]


Hmmmm, I don't know, but I think it all depends on the persons involved. My parents are both in their 90's (they met and married at 40) and my father's sister was older by 3 years. At 22 she married a man and they moved to Paris. He was supposedly very good looking and would "turn heads" when he walked in a room. He eventually cheated on her and she divorced him only to marry the love of her life 10 years later. She did tell my father that she loved the man she was marrying, but she would always love Jack (her first husband). So..in her case, a mistress did exist, sadly.

[veasleyd1]

[Elaine S]

Mariannem and I are on the same wave-length again. I find her observations very well thought out and sensible. I love romantic historical fiction but have real trouble when matters are beyone the parameters of what I know to be historically valid.

Mariannem said: This sounds cynical -- but it's realistic. Romantic love may have been conceived of in Eleanor of Acquitane's time. But it was never conceived of as happening in marriage. That's an American invention, I think.

I think her comment is probably something I agree with. It's to do with that great old manifest destiny sense of entitlement, of optimism, of single-mindedness that imbues much American thought. Certainly American women were allowed many more freedoms in the 19th century than Europen (and Asian - e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Indian, etc) were allowed. Women in Wyoming were allowed the vote about 75 years before British women, as one example. My own (very ordinary American) grandparents were divorced in about 1928 - something unheard of in Britain except for the very, very wealthy with deep pockets and very high connections.

For anyone who really would like a better understanding of the social realities of relationships in, particularly, Britain, again I recommend The Family Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 (Penguin History) by Lawrence Stone (Paperback - 29 Nov 1990) which is the best single volume I know of on the subject.

And, to Mariannem again, please keep posting - I always enjoy reading your POV. You are my mother's age and I always love hearing her perspective on life and love.

[dick]

Question for Schola: What instances in Beverley's The Arranged Marriage lead you to the conclusion that Nicholas will eventually stray? Just curious!

[Lynda X]

In the past the scandal (let alone, the difficulty of obtaining) a divorce, meant that a mistress/girl friend did not threaten the stability of the family as much as now, but I can't imagine any spouse who cares--let alone, loves--the partner is not terribly hurt at infidelity.

MarianneM wrote, "I had both the time and the curiosity to observe closely the changes in our society between 1940 and 2008. Believe me, the changes were huge. If you're interested, ask me and I'll tell you. "

So, I'm asking. I'm curious about your comparisons.

[Tee]