Historically Hot: Part One

Kingsfavorite From Susan Scott:

Yes, it’s officially hot now, the first day of August and the true dog days of summer.  Too hot for a serious blog, one with heavy history, thoughtful commentary, or even a random rant.  No more shameless self-promotion for The King's Favorite, either (except to say that it's still available, and to thank all of you who've told me how much you've enjoyed it.) Nope, at this time of year, it’s better to go straight to pictures. 

Specifically, pictures of hot historical (or should that be historically hot?) men.

I can’t be the only one who often finds the heroes on the covers of historical romances somewhat . . . lacking.  They’re supposed to be men from the past, yet with their gym-honed abs, waxed chests and brows, and blown-dry hair, most of the time they look far more at home in a club in South Beach than an English country house. 

So for my August blogs, I’m once again dusting off my under-used art history education to offer a selection of gentlemen whose handsome, confident (and more accurate) faces could be substituted for those callow cover-models: six this week, and six more at the end of the month. 

It's interesting how, in light of Wench Edith's recent blog, how few blonde men appear in portraits, and even fewer handsome ones.  True, by nature they are more rare, and, as Wench Susan/Sarah pointed out, the varnishes and oils used in paintings have often darkened over time, and the subjects' hair with it.  Fashion has always played its part as well. When the reigning monarch (whether Charles II or Victoria) was brunette, then dark hair also ruled. For whatever reason, even men whose contemporaries refer to as fair-haired are often shown in portraits as brunettes.  Apparently our much-loved golden boys belong more to our modern Clairol times than the past.

My choices below are entirely personal too; please feel free to disagree with me, or suggest others.  This isn't a contest or a puzzle, and there aren't any right or wrong answers.  As the tabloids say, it's just an excuse to show the eye-candy. *G*

Ingres17 Charles-Joseph-Laurent Cordier (1777-1870, painted in 1810 by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres)  left
With a face as knowing and world-weary as this, it can’t be mere coincidence that the gentleman (a high-ranking French official stationed in Rome) shares the surname of Loretta’s hero in Your Scandalous Ways. And have you ever seen another bureaucrat with such impeccably snowy linen?

Charles Lennox, 3rd Duke of Richmond (1734-1806, painted in 1758 byCharleslennox3dukeofrichmond_2 Sir Joshua Reynolds) right
Aside from bearing a striking resemblance to Keanu Reeves, His Grace had more than a few heroic qualities of his own as a soldier, politician, reformer, art collector, and avid dog-lover.  Most notably, he championed the cause of the colonists during the American revolution in the House of Lords.  (He’s also the great grandson of Charles II and Louise de Keroualle, the heroine of my next book, The French Mistress.)

519pxdiegovelazquez_juandepareja Juan de Pareja (1610-1670, painted in 1650 by Diego Velazquez) left
Born into slavery in Seville, Juan de Pareja was bought by Velazquez, who promptly gave him his freedom, and a place in his studio and household as well.  The two men were not only life-long friends, but associates: Pareja was also a talented painter, learning his craft as Velazquez’s assistant, and traveling with him to study throughout Italy.  There Velazquez painted this portrait of Juan, as a "warm-up" to a commissioned portrait of the Pope.

Portrait of a Young Man (Sixteenth century Florence, painted in theBronzinomet 1530s by Agnolo Bronzino) right
While this Renaissance gentleman’s name may have been lost over time, his sensuous appeal certainly hasn’t.  Historians guess from the book in his hand that he may have been a poet, or at least a member of the Florentine literary circle, and affluent (and self-assured) enough to sit for his portrait.

Capnjohnhowland Captain John Howland (1802-1846, painted by an anonymous Massachusetts painter c.1830)  left

This whaling captain from New Bedford, MA is a genuine rarity in portraits: a red-haired, blue-eyed man! A descendant of one of the first Mayflower pilgrims, Yankee John Howland went to sea as a twelve-year-old cabin boy and was a captain by the time he was twenty, sailing on three-year whaling voyages to the Pacific Ocean.  While he may  be the only American in today's gallery, he can certainly hold his own among the European gentlemen.

Bindo Altoviti (1491-1556, painted by Raphael about 1515) right

439pxraphael__bindo_altoviti While Wench Edith longed for blonde heroes on her covers in her last blog, they're also few and far between in Western male portraits.  But this wealthy young Florentine, a prominent Renaissance banker (!) and art patron, certainly makes a case for fair-haired gentlemen.  In fact, the story behind this painting is so shamelessly romantic, that I'm quoting at length the notes about it on the National Gallery of Art's web page:

[In the portrait, Bindo]"turns in a dramatic, almost theatrical, way to fix the eye of the viewer. Perhaps one viewer in particular was meant to receive his captivating look: Bindo's wife Fiammetta Soderini. Renaissance poets and courtiers were unanimous in believing that a person first fell in love through the eyes. They were called the guides of love, which could reveal the passion within more effectively than the tongue itself, or letter, or messengers. Bindo's flushed cheeks contribute to the impression of passion, and a ring is prominent on the hand he holds above his heart. The robe slipping from his shoulder reveals a bare nape caressed by soft curls. Their golden color would have underscored the nobility and purity of his love.

"Bindo and Fiammetta, daughter of a prominent Florentine family, were married in 1511, when Bindo would have been about twenty. The couple had six children, but Fiammetta continued to live in Florence while Bindo's business with the papal court required his presence in Rome. This portrait, which apparently hung in the couple's home in Florence, would have provided Fiammetta with a vivid reminder of her absent husband."

Ahhhhhh….

Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate, or do you like them just fine as they are?  And who's your favorite among these gentlemen?

And be sure to look for Part Two later this month!

80 thoughts on “Historically Hot: Part One”

  1. My personal preference is for Pareja, but I suspect that most of the Regency rakes in novels are supposed to look more like Cordier.
    I love the portraits by Jan Lievens (17th century Netherlandish). Anthony van Dyck is always, of course, a source of gorgeous young men in the first third of the 17th century.
    The Web Gallery of Art is an endless source of delight.

    Reply
  2. My personal preference is for Pareja, but I suspect that most of the Regency rakes in novels are supposed to look more like Cordier.
    I love the portraits by Jan Lievens (17th century Netherlandish). Anthony van Dyck is always, of course, a source of gorgeous young men in the first third of the 17th century.
    The Web Gallery of Art is an endless source of delight.

    Reply
  3. My personal preference is for Pareja, but I suspect that most of the Regency rakes in novels are supposed to look more like Cordier.
    I love the portraits by Jan Lievens (17th century Netherlandish). Anthony van Dyck is always, of course, a source of gorgeous young men in the first third of the 17th century.
    The Web Gallery of Art is an endless source of delight.

    Reply
  4. My personal preference is for Pareja, but I suspect that most of the Regency rakes in novels are supposed to look more like Cordier.
    I love the portraits by Jan Lievens (17th century Netherlandish). Anthony van Dyck is always, of course, a source of gorgeous young men in the first third of the 17th century.
    The Web Gallery of Art is an endless source of delight.

    Reply
  5. My personal preference is for Pareja, but I suspect that most of the Regency rakes in novels are supposed to look more like Cordier.
    I love the portraits by Jan Lievens (17th century Netherlandish). Anthony van Dyck is always, of course, a source of gorgeous young men in the first third of the 17th century.
    The Web Gallery of Art is an endless source of delight.

    Reply
  6. Wow! Cordier lived to 93. Long time during that era.
    I think for me, and I know we had a bit of this the other day on cover models, but for me, the less ‘historical’, more ‘hot’ romance, the more I like a beefy model on the cover. If the novel reflects more the true tenets of the era in which it’s set, the more I want to see a cover that depicts that era, more true to life with the models on the cover.
    Let’s face it, there are a lot of wonderful, not-quite-historically-accurate novels out there that are just fun and a bit of fluff. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I read more than my fair share of them. But when I pick up the novel, if it has an original portrait of Henry the 8th on the cover, I don’t expect to find inside a time traveling novel full of Fae, hot bodies and a lot of sex. Those are the novels I expect to see the manscaped model on.
    With Henry, I expect a novel with much more attention to detail, the history almost becoming a character of it’s own.
    And without any coffee this morning, if that all makes the least bit of sense, I have a bridge…
    😉

    Reply
  7. Wow! Cordier lived to 93. Long time during that era.
    I think for me, and I know we had a bit of this the other day on cover models, but for me, the less ‘historical’, more ‘hot’ romance, the more I like a beefy model on the cover. If the novel reflects more the true tenets of the era in which it’s set, the more I want to see a cover that depicts that era, more true to life with the models on the cover.
    Let’s face it, there are a lot of wonderful, not-quite-historically-accurate novels out there that are just fun and a bit of fluff. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I read more than my fair share of them. But when I pick up the novel, if it has an original portrait of Henry the 8th on the cover, I don’t expect to find inside a time traveling novel full of Fae, hot bodies and a lot of sex. Those are the novels I expect to see the manscaped model on.
    With Henry, I expect a novel with much more attention to detail, the history almost becoming a character of it’s own.
    And without any coffee this morning, if that all makes the least bit of sense, I have a bridge…
    😉

    Reply
  8. Wow! Cordier lived to 93. Long time during that era.
    I think for me, and I know we had a bit of this the other day on cover models, but for me, the less ‘historical’, more ‘hot’ romance, the more I like a beefy model on the cover. If the novel reflects more the true tenets of the era in which it’s set, the more I want to see a cover that depicts that era, more true to life with the models on the cover.
    Let’s face it, there are a lot of wonderful, not-quite-historically-accurate novels out there that are just fun and a bit of fluff. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I read more than my fair share of them. But when I pick up the novel, if it has an original portrait of Henry the 8th on the cover, I don’t expect to find inside a time traveling novel full of Fae, hot bodies and a lot of sex. Those are the novels I expect to see the manscaped model on.
    With Henry, I expect a novel with much more attention to detail, the history almost becoming a character of it’s own.
    And without any coffee this morning, if that all makes the least bit of sense, I have a bridge…
    😉

    Reply
  9. Wow! Cordier lived to 93. Long time during that era.
    I think for me, and I know we had a bit of this the other day on cover models, but for me, the less ‘historical’, more ‘hot’ romance, the more I like a beefy model on the cover. If the novel reflects more the true tenets of the era in which it’s set, the more I want to see a cover that depicts that era, more true to life with the models on the cover.
    Let’s face it, there are a lot of wonderful, not-quite-historically-accurate novels out there that are just fun and a bit of fluff. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I read more than my fair share of them. But when I pick up the novel, if it has an original portrait of Henry the 8th on the cover, I don’t expect to find inside a time traveling novel full of Fae, hot bodies and a lot of sex. Those are the novels I expect to see the manscaped model on.
    With Henry, I expect a novel with much more attention to detail, the history almost becoming a character of it’s own.
    And without any coffee this morning, if that all makes the least bit of sense, I have a bridge…
    😉

    Reply
  10. Wow! Cordier lived to 93. Long time during that era.
    I think for me, and I know we had a bit of this the other day on cover models, but for me, the less ‘historical’, more ‘hot’ romance, the more I like a beefy model on the cover. If the novel reflects more the true tenets of the era in which it’s set, the more I want to see a cover that depicts that era, more true to life with the models on the cover.
    Let’s face it, there are a lot of wonderful, not-quite-historically-accurate novels out there that are just fun and a bit of fluff. And I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that, I read more than my fair share of them. But when I pick up the novel, if it has an original portrait of Henry the 8th on the cover, I don’t expect to find inside a time traveling novel full of Fae, hot bodies and a lot of sex. Those are the novels I expect to see the manscaped model on.
    With Henry, I expect a novel with much more attention to detail, the history almost becoming a character of it’s own.
    And without any coffee this morning, if that all makes the least bit of sense, I have a bridge…
    😉

    Reply
  11. Your selections are far better than the usual cover faces: they convey someone un-air-brushedly real. I realize these portraits may have been designed to flatter, but they’re still more individual than today’s romance covers.
    Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate
    Oh yes. Make them more accurate (either to the character or to normal human looks), or cover them up completely. I prefer abstract covers (or brown paper) to the usual Fabio derivatives.
    I like the trend to cut off cover models’ heads–because so often the heads are poorly done. I prefer a headless woman to a bad-actress vacant stare of simulated passion. Ditto the men: a trying-to-be-sexy sneer just makes me wince. Off with their heads!

    Reply
  12. Your selections are far better than the usual cover faces: they convey someone un-air-brushedly real. I realize these portraits may have been designed to flatter, but they’re still more individual than today’s romance covers.
    Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate
    Oh yes. Make them more accurate (either to the character or to normal human looks), or cover them up completely. I prefer abstract covers (or brown paper) to the usual Fabio derivatives.
    I like the trend to cut off cover models’ heads–because so often the heads are poorly done. I prefer a headless woman to a bad-actress vacant stare of simulated passion. Ditto the men: a trying-to-be-sexy sneer just makes me wince. Off with their heads!

    Reply
  13. Your selections are far better than the usual cover faces: they convey someone un-air-brushedly real. I realize these portraits may have been designed to flatter, but they’re still more individual than today’s romance covers.
    Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate
    Oh yes. Make them more accurate (either to the character or to normal human looks), or cover them up completely. I prefer abstract covers (or brown paper) to the usual Fabio derivatives.
    I like the trend to cut off cover models’ heads–because so often the heads are poorly done. I prefer a headless woman to a bad-actress vacant stare of simulated passion. Ditto the men: a trying-to-be-sexy sneer just makes me wince. Off with their heads!

    Reply
  14. Your selections are far better than the usual cover faces: they convey someone un-air-brushedly real. I realize these portraits may have been designed to flatter, but they’re still more individual than today’s romance covers.
    Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate
    Oh yes. Make them more accurate (either to the character or to normal human looks), or cover them up completely. I prefer abstract covers (or brown paper) to the usual Fabio derivatives.
    I like the trend to cut off cover models’ heads–because so often the heads are poorly done. I prefer a headless woman to a bad-actress vacant stare of simulated passion. Ditto the men: a trying-to-be-sexy sneer just makes me wince. Off with their heads!

    Reply
  15. Your selections are far better than the usual cover faces: they convey someone un-air-brushedly real. I realize these portraits may have been designed to flatter, but they’re still more individual than today’s romance covers.
    Do you wish the cover-models for romantic heroes were a bit more accurate
    Oh yes. Make them more accurate (either to the character or to normal human looks), or cover them up completely. I prefer abstract covers (or brown paper) to the usual Fabio derivatives.
    I like the trend to cut off cover models’ heads–because so often the heads are poorly done. I prefer a headless woman to a bad-actress vacant stare of simulated passion. Ditto the men: a trying-to-be-sexy sneer just makes me wince. Off with their heads!

    Reply
  16. My own shameless promotion. Three other writers and I have a group blog, Vauxhall Vixens http://vauxhallvixens.blogspot.com
    Every Saturday we post a Historically Accurate Hottie (hereafter known as HAH). Sometimes we are a little inaccurate and get carried away and wind up with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor in a kilt, but it’s been enormous fun looking at paintings—and hard to find ‘heroic’ ones. I believe most men waited until they were rich enough, old enough and/or powerful enough to merit the immortality to sit for a portrait—and by then they were likely bald, fat and definitely not Nathan Kamp lookalikes.
    Lennox looks as if he could use a bit of rouge, LOL. Maybe he’s posing for a vampire cover?

    Reply
  17. My own shameless promotion. Three other writers and I have a group blog, Vauxhall Vixens http://vauxhallvixens.blogspot.com
    Every Saturday we post a Historically Accurate Hottie (hereafter known as HAH). Sometimes we are a little inaccurate and get carried away and wind up with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor in a kilt, but it’s been enormous fun looking at paintings—and hard to find ‘heroic’ ones. I believe most men waited until they were rich enough, old enough and/or powerful enough to merit the immortality to sit for a portrait—and by then they were likely bald, fat and definitely not Nathan Kamp lookalikes.
    Lennox looks as if he could use a bit of rouge, LOL. Maybe he’s posing for a vampire cover?

    Reply
  18. My own shameless promotion. Three other writers and I have a group blog, Vauxhall Vixens http://vauxhallvixens.blogspot.com
    Every Saturday we post a Historically Accurate Hottie (hereafter known as HAH). Sometimes we are a little inaccurate and get carried away and wind up with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor in a kilt, but it’s been enormous fun looking at paintings—and hard to find ‘heroic’ ones. I believe most men waited until they were rich enough, old enough and/or powerful enough to merit the immortality to sit for a portrait—and by then they were likely bald, fat and definitely not Nathan Kamp lookalikes.
    Lennox looks as if he could use a bit of rouge, LOL. Maybe he’s posing for a vampire cover?

    Reply
  19. My own shameless promotion. Three other writers and I have a group blog, Vauxhall Vixens http://vauxhallvixens.blogspot.com
    Every Saturday we post a Historically Accurate Hottie (hereafter known as HAH). Sometimes we are a little inaccurate and get carried away and wind up with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor in a kilt, but it’s been enormous fun looking at paintings—and hard to find ‘heroic’ ones. I believe most men waited until they were rich enough, old enough and/or powerful enough to merit the immortality to sit for a portrait—and by then they were likely bald, fat and definitely not Nathan Kamp lookalikes.
    Lennox looks as if he could use a bit of rouge, LOL. Maybe he’s posing for a vampire cover?

    Reply
  20. My own shameless promotion. Three other writers and I have a group blog, Vauxhall Vixens http://vauxhallvixens.blogspot.com
    Every Saturday we post a Historically Accurate Hottie (hereafter known as HAH). Sometimes we are a little inaccurate and get carried away and wind up with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor in a kilt, but it’s been enormous fun looking at paintings—and hard to find ‘heroic’ ones. I believe most men waited until they were rich enough, old enough and/or powerful enough to merit the immortality to sit for a portrait—and by then they were likely bald, fat and definitely not Nathan Kamp lookalikes.
    Lennox looks as if he could use a bit of rouge, LOL. Maybe he’s posing for a vampire cover?

    Reply
  21. I have to admit none of the portraits in the post were able to get my heart to go pitty-pat – LOL
    As far as most romance book covers go – I wish they would leave the people off all together. Just let us use our imaginations – plus it is embarrassing to be seen carrying around these books with lurid covers!! (of course, that usually doesn’t stop me – ha)

    Reply
  22. I have to admit none of the portraits in the post were able to get my heart to go pitty-pat – LOL
    As far as most romance book covers go – I wish they would leave the people off all together. Just let us use our imaginations – plus it is embarrassing to be seen carrying around these books with lurid covers!! (of course, that usually doesn’t stop me – ha)

    Reply
  23. I have to admit none of the portraits in the post were able to get my heart to go pitty-pat – LOL
    As far as most romance book covers go – I wish they would leave the people off all together. Just let us use our imaginations – plus it is embarrassing to be seen carrying around these books with lurid covers!! (of course, that usually doesn’t stop me – ha)

    Reply
  24. I have to admit none of the portraits in the post were able to get my heart to go pitty-pat – LOL
    As far as most romance book covers go – I wish they would leave the people off all together. Just let us use our imaginations – plus it is embarrassing to be seen carrying around these books with lurid covers!! (of course, that usually doesn’t stop me – ha)

    Reply
  25. I have to admit none of the portraits in the post were able to get my heart to go pitty-pat – LOL
    As far as most romance book covers go – I wish they would leave the people off all together. Just let us use our imaginations – plus it is embarrassing to be seen carrying around these books with lurid covers!! (of course, that usually doesn’t stop me – ha)

    Reply
  26. Maggie, there’s NOTHING wrong with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor–it’s unfortunate that “Rob Roy” the movie came out the same year as did “Braveheart”. Personally, I thought “Rob Roy” was the better film, and not just because I like Liam better than I do Mel Gibson! I keep hoping that someday a “director’s cut” version of “Rob Roy will be released on DVD because when the movie came out, I read in some magazines that among the footage left on the cutting room floor were scenes of Liam and his er. . .accoutrements!!
    On to the topic of the moment–yes, as a former history major, I would much prefer more realistic cover art on historical romance novels. In fact, if I see a cover with what looks like someone who just came from Gold’s Gym on it, that’s a real turn-off for me. I think that if the author has any say-so on cover art, if a suitable “model” isn’t available, why not go with inanimate objects that convey the spirit of what’s inside?

    Reply
  27. Maggie, there’s NOTHING wrong with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor–it’s unfortunate that “Rob Roy” the movie came out the same year as did “Braveheart”. Personally, I thought “Rob Roy” was the better film, and not just because I like Liam better than I do Mel Gibson! I keep hoping that someday a “director’s cut” version of “Rob Roy will be released on DVD because when the movie came out, I read in some magazines that among the footage left on the cutting room floor were scenes of Liam and his er. . .accoutrements!!
    On to the topic of the moment–yes, as a former history major, I would much prefer more realistic cover art on historical romance novels. In fact, if I see a cover with what looks like someone who just came from Gold’s Gym on it, that’s a real turn-off for me. I think that if the author has any say-so on cover art, if a suitable “model” isn’t available, why not go with inanimate objects that convey the spirit of what’s inside?

    Reply
  28. Maggie, there’s NOTHING wrong with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor–it’s unfortunate that “Rob Roy” the movie came out the same year as did “Braveheart”. Personally, I thought “Rob Roy” was the better film, and not just because I like Liam better than I do Mel Gibson! I keep hoping that someday a “director’s cut” version of “Rob Roy will be released on DVD because when the movie came out, I read in some magazines that among the footage left on the cutting room floor were scenes of Liam and his er. . .accoutrements!!
    On to the topic of the moment–yes, as a former history major, I would much prefer more realistic cover art on historical romance novels. In fact, if I see a cover with what looks like someone who just came from Gold’s Gym on it, that’s a real turn-off for me. I think that if the author has any say-so on cover art, if a suitable “model” isn’t available, why not go with inanimate objects that convey the spirit of what’s inside?

    Reply
  29. Maggie, there’s NOTHING wrong with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor–it’s unfortunate that “Rob Roy” the movie came out the same year as did “Braveheart”. Personally, I thought “Rob Roy” was the better film, and not just because I like Liam better than I do Mel Gibson! I keep hoping that someday a “director’s cut” version of “Rob Roy will be released on DVD because when the movie came out, I read in some magazines that among the footage left on the cutting room floor were scenes of Liam and his er. . .accoutrements!!
    On to the topic of the moment–yes, as a former history major, I would much prefer more realistic cover art on historical romance novels. In fact, if I see a cover with what looks like someone who just came from Gold’s Gym on it, that’s a real turn-off for me. I think that if the author has any say-so on cover art, if a suitable “model” isn’t available, why not go with inanimate objects that convey the spirit of what’s inside?

    Reply
  30. Maggie, there’s NOTHING wrong with Liam Neeson as Rob Roy McGregor–it’s unfortunate that “Rob Roy” the movie came out the same year as did “Braveheart”. Personally, I thought “Rob Roy” was the better film, and not just because I like Liam better than I do Mel Gibson! I keep hoping that someday a “director’s cut” version of “Rob Roy will be released on DVD because when the movie came out, I read in some magazines that among the footage left on the cutting room floor were scenes of Liam and his er. . .accoutrements!!
    On to the topic of the moment–yes, as a former history major, I would much prefer more realistic cover art on historical romance novels. In fact, if I see a cover with what looks like someone who just came from Gold’s Gym on it, that’s a real turn-off for me. I think that if the author has any say-so on cover art, if a suitable “model” isn’t available, why not go with inanimate objects that convey the spirit of what’s inside?

    Reply
  31. Didn’t that one fellow look like Martin Sheen when he was younger? I would prefer a formal portrait for the front cover, or anonymous objects. (Anne Gracie’s are nice, as are the recently rereleased Georgette Heyer’s) My imagination is plenty adequate to allow “our hero” to move into action, I don’t need cover help for that.
    I also have no patience for heroes who have modern haircuts. And I’m having trouble picturing blonds–they all come out like Matthew McConaughey. Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! 🙂

    Reply
  32. Didn’t that one fellow look like Martin Sheen when he was younger? I would prefer a formal portrait for the front cover, or anonymous objects. (Anne Gracie’s are nice, as are the recently rereleased Georgette Heyer’s) My imagination is plenty adequate to allow “our hero” to move into action, I don’t need cover help for that.
    I also have no patience for heroes who have modern haircuts. And I’m having trouble picturing blonds–they all come out like Matthew McConaughey. Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! 🙂

    Reply
  33. Didn’t that one fellow look like Martin Sheen when he was younger? I would prefer a formal portrait for the front cover, or anonymous objects. (Anne Gracie’s are nice, as are the recently rereleased Georgette Heyer’s) My imagination is plenty adequate to allow “our hero” to move into action, I don’t need cover help for that.
    I also have no patience for heroes who have modern haircuts. And I’m having trouble picturing blonds–they all come out like Matthew McConaughey. Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! 🙂

    Reply
  34. Didn’t that one fellow look like Martin Sheen when he was younger? I would prefer a formal portrait for the front cover, or anonymous objects. (Anne Gracie’s are nice, as are the recently rereleased Georgette Heyer’s) My imagination is plenty adequate to allow “our hero” to move into action, I don’t need cover help for that.
    I also have no patience for heroes who have modern haircuts. And I’m having trouble picturing blonds–they all come out like Matthew McConaughey. Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! 🙂

    Reply
  35. Didn’t that one fellow look like Martin Sheen when he was younger? I would prefer a formal portrait for the front cover, or anonymous objects. (Anne Gracie’s are nice, as are the recently rereleased Georgette Heyer’s) My imagination is plenty adequate to allow “our hero” to move into action, I don’t need cover help for that.
    I also have no patience for heroes who have modern haircuts. And I’m having trouble picturing blonds–they all come out like Matthew McConaughey. Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! 🙂

    Reply
  36. Ooh, I love M. Cordier, but I have to say that the blond Signor Altoviti is my fave. Not necessarily because he’s blond but because of the look in his eye. As to what’s on the cover, I’ve learned to my deep chagrin that covers sans people too frequently do not sell nearly as well as the ones with the beefy burritos. Me, I’m not complaining, because my pubs so far have focused on my heroines and left the guys to readers’ imaginations…which I think is a fine place to leave them.

    Reply
  37. Ooh, I love M. Cordier, but I have to say that the blond Signor Altoviti is my fave. Not necessarily because he’s blond but because of the look in his eye. As to what’s on the cover, I’ve learned to my deep chagrin that covers sans people too frequently do not sell nearly as well as the ones with the beefy burritos. Me, I’m not complaining, because my pubs so far have focused on my heroines and left the guys to readers’ imaginations…which I think is a fine place to leave them.

    Reply
  38. Ooh, I love M. Cordier, but I have to say that the blond Signor Altoviti is my fave. Not necessarily because he’s blond but because of the look in his eye. As to what’s on the cover, I’ve learned to my deep chagrin that covers sans people too frequently do not sell nearly as well as the ones with the beefy burritos. Me, I’m not complaining, because my pubs so far have focused on my heroines and left the guys to readers’ imaginations…which I think is a fine place to leave them.

    Reply
  39. Ooh, I love M. Cordier, but I have to say that the blond Signor Altoviti is my fave. Not necessarily because he’s blond but because of the look in his eye. As to what’s on the cover, I’ve learned to my deep chagrin that covers sans people too frequently do not sell nearly as well as the ones with the beefy burritos. Me, I’m not complaining, because my pubs so far have focused on my heroines and left the guys to readers’ imaginations…which I think is a fine place to leave them.

    Reply
  40. Ooh, I love M. Cordier, but I have to say that the blond Signor Altoviti is my fave. Not necessarily because he’s blond but because of the look in his eye. As to what’s on the cover, I’ve learned to my deep chagrin that covers sans people too frequently do not sell nearly as well as the ones with the beefy burritos. Me, I’m not complaining, because my pubs so far have focused on my heroines and left the guys to readers’ imaginations…which I think is a fine place to leave them.

    Reply
  41. Beth wrote:
    “Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! :)”
    Anthony van Dyck, joint portrait of John Stuart and Bernard Stuart, the two youngest sons of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox, and Katherine Clifton, baroness Clifton in her own right. Both young men, in their late teens at the time of the portrait, were very blond.
    Quite a few of the “images” on google list them as Lord John and Lord Bernard Lennox, which is not correct.

    Reply
  42. Beth wrote:
    “Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! :)”
    Anthony van Dyck, joint portrait of John Stuart and Bernard Stuart, the two youngest sons of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox, and Katherine Clifton, baroness Clifton in her own right. Both young men, in their late teens at the time of the portrait, were very blond.
    Quite a few of the “images” on google list them as Lord John and Lord Bernard Lennox, which is not correct.

    Reply
  43. Beth wrote:
    “Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! :)”
    Anthony van Dyck, joint portrait of John Stuart and Bernard Stuart, the two youngest sons of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox, and Katherine Clifton, baroness Clifton in her own right. Both young men, in their late teens at the time of the portrait, were very blond.
    Quite a few of the “images” on google list them as Lord John and Lord Bernard Lennox, which is not correct.

    Reply
  44. Beth wrote:
    “Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! :)”
    Anthony van Dyck, joint portrait of John Stuart and Bernard Stuart, the two youngest sons of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox, and Katherine Clifton, baroness Clifton in her own right. Both young men, in their late teens at the time of the portrait, were very blond.
    Quite a few of the “images” on google list them as Lord John and Lord Bernard Lennox, which is not correct.

    Reply
  45. Beth wrote:
    “Yes, I’d like to see more historical pics of blond guys! :)”
    Anthony van Dyck, joint portrait of John Stuart and Bernard Stuart, the two youngest sons of Esme Stuart, 3rd duke of Lennox, and Katherine Clifton, baroness Clifton in her own right. Both young men, in their late teens at the time of the portrait, were very blond.
    Quite a few of the “images” on google list them as Lord John and Lord Bernard Lennox, which is not correct.

    Reply
  46. Susan again:
    Many excellent suggestions here! Several (including the Stuart brothers) I’d already bookmarked for the next blog myself. *g*
    Maggie, I hadn’t realized you’d made this a standard feature on your own blog! Many excellent choices over there, too, for anyone who wishes to browse further, and I have to say that “Historical Hotties” does have a certain charm as a title.
    Keep Google-ing away –– it’s great to see what you all discover as well. Ah, the thrill of the internet hunt!

    Reply
  47. Susan again:
    Many excellent suggestions here! Several (including the Stuart brothers) I’d already bookmarked for the next blog myself. *g*
    Maggie, I hadn’t realized you’d made this a standard feature on your own blog! Many excellent choices over there, too, for anyone who wishes to browse further, and I have to say that “Historical Hotties” does have a certain charm as a title.
    Keep Google-ing away –– it’s great to see what you all discover as well. Ah, the thrill of the internet hunt!

    Reply
  48. Susan again:
    Many excellent suggestions here! Several (including the Stuart brothers) I’d already bookmarked for the next blog myself. *g*
    Maggie, I hadn’t realized you’d made this a standard feature on your own blog! Many excellent choices over there, too, for anyone who wishes to browse further, and I have to say that “Historical Hotties” does have a certain charm as a title.
    Keep Google-ing away –– it’s great to see what you all discover as well. Ah, the thrill of the internet hunt!

    Reply
  49. Susan again:
    Many excellent suggestions here! Several (including the Stuart brothers) I’d already bookmarked for the next blog myself. *g*
    Maggie, I hadn’t realized you’d made this a standard feature on your own blog! Many excellent choices over there, too, for anyone who wishes to browse further, and I have to say that “Historical Hotties” does have a certain charm as a title.
    Keep Google-ing away –– it’s great to see what you all discover as well. Ah, the thrill of the internet hunt!

    Reply
  50. Susan again:
    Many excellent suggestions here! Several (including the Stuart brothers) I’d already bookmarked for the next blog myself. *g*
    Maggie, I hadn’t realized you’d made this a standard feature on your own blog! Many excellent choices over there, too, for anyone who wishes to browse further, and I have to say that “Historical Hotties” does have a certain charm as a title.
    Keep Google-ing away –– it’s great to see what you all discover as well. Ah, the thrill of the internet hunt!

    Reply

Leave a Comment