It's really is hard to believe so many reviewers find this book a credible Regency!The summary above leaves out certain key elements of this story that stand out as glaringly unlikely, most significantly the heroines close relationship with a man she is not married to.Also, the book contains many modern phrases and the frequent appearance of the word 'cute'.Nor does the author get the social mores of the day right. (The following comments contain spoilers). The orphaned heroine lives with a 'widowed' companion only 2 years her senior, a highly unlikely Duenna! The heroine has been 'friends' with a Lord Ensley for about a decade, they meet regularly, spend lengthy periods alone together, touching and embracing. Are they lovers? This is never openly disclosed, there are no bedroom scenes between them, but after ten years together its hard to believe they aren't. But even if they weren't society would surely believe them so and the heroine would be treated very definitely by the society of the day as 'ruined'. Yet her Great Uncle has apparently looked into her reputation and decided it is respectable, so he leaves her his country estate.Also, she corresponds with Ensley, spends much time with him in public, mutual friends treat them as a couple, but she is not a social pariah or considered amongst the demi monde. It's just unbelievable!The heroine's friend is by contrast careful not to enter an affair with a young man when she is not free to do so and insists on wearing mourning for a cruel wife beating husband, once he actually dies, this part of the story is also a bit silly as the pretend widow uses her real married name and makes no attempt to create a false history. Her deception could be revealed at any point. You would think after spending years in Canada with her unkind spouse, she wouldn't find adopting a false identity too hard, as using her own name leaves her constantly open to exposure.This friend (Maria) clearly thinks Ensley isn't good for the heroine, but this very principled woman makes no moral protest at the heroine's relationship with Ensley, not even when the heroine initially decides to continue it after both she and Ensley are married. This is surely inconsistent.Weirdly, the heroine (Anne) won't live in a house Ensley buys for her with his wife's money, oh no she has principles! She'll carry on the affair ( and it is an affair even if not a physical one) with him in the house her husband's money buys for her instead. At one point Anne starts to tell Henry (her husband) about Ensley, but even then she simply describes him as a 'friend'.In fact when the author describes Ensley offer to buy Anne a house in London so they can meet there, it still isn't explicitly stated that he intends her to be his mistress, yet it's hard to believe he meant anything else. I dont know why the author writes so ambiguously. Personally I found the ambiguity ridiculous. The closest we get to a clear statement that Ensley and Anne were lovers is Henry speaking of her 'liaison' with Ensley, a description I note that, Anne does not correct.Added to the above the hero's falling in love with the heroine isn't convincing. She's beautiful and witty, but also arrogant and opinionated. Henry says it was her kindness that led to his falling for her, yet she is portrayed consistently through out the book as being capable of kindness to those she knows, but not really capable of the wider philanthropy that is so much part of the hero's character and which is so important to him. I think this flaw in her nature would be too deep for him to fall for her. Also, I really can't believe any man would marry the woman he loves while he still believes her to be in love with and having an affair with another man, a man he then throws her into the path of immediately after their wedding. in truth only the secondary romance is believable.
One of THE best regencies I've read, and I've read SO many. Of course: you can't compare this to Austen, if that's your idea of a good regency. (I think Heyer's my queen, and Austen's the princess, but anyway) The Country Gentleman is more Heyer-like, if anything.Gosh, I could rave about this book forever, but I'll try to contain myself.First off - the leads. The heroine is wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. She's so endearing because of how realistic she is, really. She isn't a paragon of virtues or ridiculously shrewish, and its so refreshing to have a heroine who struggles with pride and temper and feelings in a believable way. The hero is just as wonderful. He's a character study of his own, and just like the heroine, it was fantastic to have such a real, believable, imperfect hero. Their developing relationship was a great read, nicely paced, and had a satisfying, sweet conclusion. The side characters are just as cute a read, and don't detract from the main romance in any way. The plot is paced very well and has an interesting setting (the countryside) for a regency, when one is so used to reading about the ton.One great thing about the book is the writing style. Fiona Hill writes the story with a dry humorous quality that will leave you smiling through the whole book. Some of her sentences actually inspire full out giggles, trust me.If I could give this six stars, I totally would, its so worth a re-read (and more). I can't wait to read more Fiona Hill books, based on this one!
Do You like book The Country Gentleman (1989)?
Other reviewers have explained the gist of the story....sweet awakening love. You won't find delirous passion, sex or heart-stopping, page-turning suspense. What you will find is a woman, Ann Guilfoyle, who doesn't realize how naive she is. She thinks she knows what she wants and is set in her ways. Content with her friendships, she has very little room for anyone else. Even worse, she makes her opinions known and expects others to agree. Until she meets Mr. Highet, a farmer. Her world slowly starts to topple. Her views of others differ now, not everything is so black and white anymore. Mr. Highet, with his loud laughter and sleepy-eyed looks, unsettles her. I am not sure if people really behaved this way in 19th century England but I was content to read a historical romance that took place in a world when things were much slower. In some ways it reminded me of 'Sense and Sensibility' by Jane Austin. I would have given it 3 1/2 stars if I could; some areas were a little slow and Anne irked me with her actions after awhile. Still, if you enjoy regencies or want something light to read I can recommend this book.
—Linda
This is a delightful book, and Henry Highet is a dreamy, wonderful hero. The book has a true Regency feel - partly because the author deliberately wrote the book in the style of Jane Austen and other authors of that time, even using archaic spellings for some words ('chuse' instead of 'choose'). I'm astonished that Fiona Hill is practically unknown as a writer of Regency romance. I would recommend this book to any lover of Regency romance.(My initial rating for this book back in 2010 was 4 stars, but after a second reading where I enjoyed the book even more than the first time, I increased that to 5 stars.)
—Ilze
