Minor characters and their inspiration

HOUSE OF SHADOWS webNicola here. I’ve always found writing minor characters to be fun. They add context and depth to a story. Sometimes they run away with it and demand a story of their own. In House of Shadows I have an “offstage” character, Lady Evershot, who is modelled on a famous Georgian aristocrat, Elizabeth Berkeley, and as this is Women’s History Month I thought it would be fun to talk about Lady Elizabeth, who was most definitely a woman ahead of her time.

Lady Elizabeth Berkeley was the daughter of the Earl of Berkeley, and married the 6th Baron Craven when she was 16 years old, before he inherited his title. It was not a love match and later, in her memoirs, she claimed she was too young to have made an informed decision and that she gave in to family pressure, which is an interesting insight into the workings of the marriage mart in Georgian England.

The young couple lived at Ashdown House for a couple of years, their two eldest children being Elizabeth Berkeley born there. Alas the Craven marriage was not a happy one; from the earliest times Lady Elizabeth was complaining that her husband was uncultured and uncouth, a man who read nothing but the newspapers, whereas she was more creative, an artist and a writer. After not many years they drifted apart and she had an affair with the French ambassador whilst her husband set up a mistress who styled herself Lady Craven, much to the real Lady Craven’s fury.  Matters became so bitter between them and the scandal so well-known in society that King George III himself stepped in to order the Cravens to be more discreet. No one minded them having affairs; the only criticism was for the public mud-slinging!

Eventually Lady Craven left her husband and travelled abroad, visiting Europe, Russia and Turkey, travelling in her own, luxuriously appointed travelling carriage with plenty of servants to ease her way. She wrote letters home describing her experiences and the sights and sounds of her journeys, an intrepid female explorer long before women thought that lone travelling was respectable, safe or appealing. The author Sybil Rosenfeld, in her book Temples of Thespis, describes Lady Craven’s subsequent life:

Brandenburg house“She travelled about Europe for some years until she finally settled at the court of the Margrave of Anspach in 1787 as his “adopted sister”. In 1791 only a month after she heard of the death of her husband she married the Margrave in Lisbon and persuaded him to give up the ruling of his principality and retire with her and his fortune to England. Her precipitancy was considered indecent and, on her return, she found herself cold-shouldered by the court and high society. The Margrave, a stolid German who seems only to have wished for a peaceful life, purchased Brandenburgh House a country villa on the bank of the Thames at Hammersmith and spent the rest of his days there. His wife built a theatre in the grounds where she could entertain him and at the same time indulge in her favourite past time of taking the centre stage….

Despite the fact that the Margrave was related to King George III his wife was not received at court as she was considered too scandalous. Nothing daunted, she spent her time at the races and in organising private theatricals, which were often performances of plays she had written herself. The theatre at Brandenburg House was built as a faux castle in the manner of Horace Walpole’s Strawberry Hill and the productions were lavish and extravagant with the Margravine frequently taking a leading role. As a larger than life figure of the era, she was lampooned by the caricaturists of the time and described my Walpole as entertaining but “infinitely indiscreet.”

Perhaps private theatricals suited the former Lady Craven’s need to be the focus of attention and gave her the opportunity to Brandenburg theatre assume a number of different roles and act out her fantasies. In that she was not alone since it was a popular entertainment in upper class Georgian society. Nevertheless she snubbed her eldest son’s wife who was a “real” actress, Louisa Brunton. The two were said cordially to detest one another. Perhaps it was envy on the Margravine’s part rather than snobbery though, although Louisa was considered a great beauty rather than a great actress.

The Margravine was reconciled with her sons, the eldest of whom became the First Earl of Craven of the 2nd Creation, but she and her daughters never spoke. Her second daughter was Maria, Countess of Sefton, who was one of the patronesses of Almack’s and said to be a stickler for respectability. One can only imagine the impression her scandalous mother’s behaviour might have made on her.

Elizabeth_%28Berkeley%29%2C_Margravine_of_Anspach_by_Ozias_HumphryThe Margrave of Anspach died in 1806 and Elizabeth moved to Naples where she died in 1828. There are still two roads named after her in Hammersmith, London!

In House of Shadows Lady Evershot is a more sinister and less likeable figure than Elizabeth Craven, although she has the same questionable sense of morality and the same love of horse-racing. She never appears in the book but her presence over-shadows the Regency element of the story and certainly affects her son, who is dependent upon her for money.

Do you have a favourite minor character who appears in a book – or doesn’t appear but is still a presence?

90 thoughts on “Minor characters and their inspiration”

  1. Wonderful, Nicola! I wish I’d know her. So she was the mother of Maria, Lady Sefton, one of the formidable patronesses of Almack’s. *G* Aristocratic London sounds like a small town in a lot of ways!
    As for minor characters–One I invented as a foil for the heroine of Petals in the Storm became so interesting I had to give him his own book, Angel Rogue. ‘Tis ever thus…

    Reply
  2. Wonderful, Nicola! I wish I’d know her. So she was the mother of Maria, Lady Sefton, one of the formidable patronesses of Almack’s. *G* Aristocratic London sounds like a small town in a lot of ways!
    As for minor characters–One I invented as a foil for the heroine of Petals in the Storm became so interesting I had to give him his own book, Angel Rogue. ‘Tis ever thus…

    Reply
  3. Wonderful, Nicola! I wish I’d know her. So she was the mother of Maria, Lady Sefton, one of the formidable patronesses of Almack’s. *G* Aristocratic London sounds like a small town in a lot of ways!
    As for minor characters–One I invented as a foil for the heroine of Petals in the Storm became so interesting I had to give him his own book, Angel Rogue. ‘Tis ever thus…

    Reply
  4. Wonderful, Nicola! I wish I’d know her. So she was the mother of Maria, Lady Sefton, one of the formidable patronesses of Almack’s. *G* Aristocratic London sounds like a small town in a lot of ways!
    As for minor characters–One I invented as a foil for the heroine of Petals in the Storm became so interesting I had to give him his own book, Angel Rogue. ‘Tis ever thus…

    Reply
  5. Wonderful, Nicola! I wish I’d know her. So she was the mother of Maria, Lady Sefton, one of the formidable patronesses of Almack’s. *G* Aristocratic London sounds like a small town in a lot of ways!
    As for minor characters–One I invented as a foil for the heroine of Petals in the Storm became so interesting I had to give him his own book, Angel Rogue. ‘Tis ever thus…

    Reply
  6. Thanks for a great post. As always, I’m fascinated by your research stories.
    I don’t think I’d have liked her — she appears to be a bit self-centered for me. But the me of today is extremely critical of the cynicism of the haut ton, so the me of today would acknowledge her, and would speak to her whenever our paths crossed.
    My husband loves theatricals, so perhaps we’d have attended her play.
    Actually, we’re both died-in-the wool middle class, so we’d have never crossed her path except in books!

    Reply
  7. Thanks for a great post. As always, I’m fascinated by your research stories.
    I don’t think I’d have liked her — she appears to be a bit self-centered for me. But the me of today is extremely critical of the cynicism of the haut ton, so the me of today would acknowledge her, and would speak to her whenever our paths crossed.
    My husband loves theatricals, so perhaps we’d have attended her play.
    Actually, we’re both died-in-the wool middle class, so we’d have never crossed her path except in books!

    Reply
  8. Thanks for a great post. As always, I’m fascinated by your research stories.
    I don’t think I’d have liked her — she appears to be a bit self-centered for me. But the me of today is extremely critical of the cynicism of the haut ton, so the me of today would acknowledge her, and would speak to her whenever our paths crossed.
    My husband loves theatricals, so perhaps we’d have attended her play.
    Actually, we’re both died-in-the wool middle class, so we’d have never crossed her path except in books!

    Reply
  9. Thanks for a great post. As always, I’m fascinated by your research stories.
    I don’t think I’d have liked her — she appears to be a bit self-centered for me. But the me of today is extremely critical of the cynicism of the haut ton, so the me of today would acknowledge her, and would speak to her whenever our paths crossed.
    My husband loves theatricals, so perhaps we’d have attended her play.
    Actually, we’re both died-in-the wool middle class, so we’d have never crossed her path except in books!

    Reply
  10. Thanks for a great post. As always, I’m fascinated by your research stories.
    I don’t think I’d have liked her — she appears to be a bit self-centered for me. But the me of today is extremely critical of the cynicism of the haut ton, so the me of today would acknowledge her, and would speak to her whenever our paths crossed.
    My husband loves theatricals, so perhaps we’d have attended her play.
    Actually, we’re both died-in-the wool middle class, so we’d have never crossed her path except in books!

    Reply
  11. What an interesting post, Nicola, particularly the Lady Sefton connection. Some of my all-time favorite characters started as secondary characters. Oddly, many were less than admirable characters in the original stories–Mary Jo’s Reggie Davenport, Lisa Kleypas’s Sebastian, Lord St. Vincent, Connie Brockway’s Giles, Lord Strand, Eloisa James’s Leoplold Dautry, Duke of Villiers, to name a few. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Anne will write Marcus Renfrew’s story, and I’ll always be sad that Jo Beverley’s plans for the Daffodil Dandy never reached fruition.

    Reply
  12. What an interesting post, Nicola, particularly the Lady Sefton connection. Some of my all-time favorite characters started as secondary characters. Oddly, many were less than admirable characters in the original stories–Mary Jo’s Reggie Davenport, Lisa Kleypas’s Sebastian, Lord St. Vincent, Connie Brockway’s Giles, Lord Strand, Eloisa James’s Leoplold Dautry, Duke of Villiers, to name a few. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Anne will write Marcus Renfrew’s story, and I’ll always be sad that Jo Beverley’s plans for the Daffodil Dandy never reached fruition.

    Reply
  13. What an interesting post, Nicola, particularly the Lady Sefton connection. Some of my all-time favorite characters started as secondary characters. Oddly, many were less than admirable characters in the original stories–Mary Jo’s Reggie Davenport, Lisa Kleypas’s Sebastian, Lord St. Vincent, Connie Brockway’s Giles, Lord Strand, Eloisa James’s Leoplold Dautry, Duke of Villiers, to name a few. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Anne will write Marcus Renfrew’s story, and I’ll always be sad that Jo Beverley’s plans for the Daffodil Dandy never reached fruition.

    Reply
  14. What an interesting post, Nicola, particularly the Lady Sefton connection. Some of my all-time favorite characters started as secondary characters. Oddly, many were less than admirable characters in the original stories–Mary Jo’s Reggie Davenport, Lisa Kleypas’s Sebastian, Lord St. Vincent, Connie Brockway’s Giles, Lord Strand, Eloisa James’s Leoplold Dautry, Duke of Villiers, to name a few. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Anne will write Marcus Renfrew’s story, and I’ll always be sad that Jo Beverley’s plans for the Daffodil Dandy never reached fruition.

    Reply
  15. What an interesting post, Nicola, particularly the Lady Sefton connection. Some of my all-time favorite characters started as secondary characters. Oddly, many were less than admirable characters in the original stories–Mary Jo’s Reggie Davenport, Lisa Kleypas’s Sebastian, Lord St. Vincent, Connie Brockway’s Giles, Lord Strand, Eloisa James’s Leoplold Dautry, Duke of Villiers, to name a few. I’m still keeping my fingers crossed that Anne will write Marcus Renfrew’s story, and I’ll always be sad that Jo Beverley’s plans for the Daffodil Dandy never reached fruition.

    Reply
  16. Villains are great ones for stealing the attention. Moriarty, for example. (I know Conan Doyle didn’t write anything with him as the central character, but somebody did.) And I always thought Brian de Bois-Guilbert was a lot more interesting than Ivanhoe. Or there’s Long John Silver.
    In movies too. Sidney Greenstreet always stole the scene.
    And in romace, Thaddeus Morley in Jule Anne Long’s Hold sisters trilogy is unforgettable.
    It’s not that I don’t want my heroes to be good guys, but there’s something about a villain.

    Reply
  17. Villains are great ones for stealing the attention. Moriarty, for example. (I know Conan Doyle didn’t write anything with him as the central character, but somebody did.) And I always thought Brian de Bois-Guilbert was a lot more interesting than Ivanhoe. Or there’s Long John Silver.
    In movies too. Sidney Greenstreet always stole the scene.
    And in romace, Thaddeus Morley in Jule Anne Long’s Hold sisters trilogy is unforgettable.
    It’s not that I don’t want my heroes to be good guys, but there’s something about a villain.

    Reply
  18. Villains are great ones for stealing the attention. Moriarty, for example. (I know Conan Doyle didn’t write anything with him as the central character, but somebody did.) And I always thought Brian de Bois-Guilbert was a lot more interesting than Ivanhoe. Or there’s Long John Silver.
    In movies too. Sidney Greenstreet always stole the scene.
    And in romace, Thaddeus Morley in Jule Anne Long’s Hold sisters trilogy is unforgettable.
    It’s not that I don’t want my heroes to be good guys, but there’s something about a villain.

    Reply
  19. Villains are great ones for stealing the attention. Moriarty, for example. (I know Conan Doyle didn’t write anything with him as the central character, but somebody did.) And I always thought Brian de Bois-Guilbert was a lot more interesting than Ivanhoe. Or there’s Long John Silver.
    In movies too. Sidney Greenstreet always stole the scene.
    And in romace, Thaddeus Morley in Jule Anne Long’s Hold sisters trilogy is unforgettable.
    It’s not that I don’t want my heroes to be good guys, but there’s something about a villain.

    Reply
  20. Villains are great ones for stealing the attention. Moriarty, for example. (I know Conan Doyle didn’t write anything with him as the central character, but somebody did.) And I always thought Brian de Bois-Guilbert was a lot more interesting than Ivanhoe. Or there’s Long John Silver.
    In movies too. Sidney Greenstreet always stole the scene.
    And in romace, Thaddeus Morley in Jule Anne Long’s Hold sisters trilogy is unforgettable.
    It’s not that I don’t want my heroes to be good guys, but there’s something about a villain.

    Reply
  21. What a larger-than-life character, Nicola. I think it must have been very difficult for the women of those arranged marriages to find happiness in their marriage. It’s the appeal of the marriage-of-convenience story that they do, of course.
    As for minor characters, as Janga said, one of mine was supposed to be very much in the background, but once he made a slight appearance . . . well, he edged himself towards the limelight and people still ask for his story. One day . . .

    Reply
  22. What a larger-than-life character, Nicola. I think it must have been very difficult for the women of those arranged marriages to find happiness in their marriage. It’s the appeal of the marriage-of-convenience story that they do, of course.
    As for minor characters, as Janga said, one of mine was supposed to be very much in the background, but once he made a slight appearance . . . well, he edged himself towards the limelight and people still ask for his story. One day . . .

    Reply
  23. What a larger-than-life character, Nicola. I think it must have been very difficult for the women of those arranged marriages to find happiness in their marriage. It’s the appeal of the marriage-of-convenience story that they do, of course.
    As for minor characters, as Janga said, one of mine was supposed to be very much in the background, but once he made a slight appearance . . . well, he edged himself towards the limelight and people still ask for his story. One day . . .

    Reply
  24. What a larger-than-life character, Nicola. I think it must have been very difficult for the women of those arranged marriages to find happiness in their marriage. It’s the appeal of the marriage-of-convenience story that they do, of course.
    As for minor characters, as Janga said, one of mine was supposed to be very much in the background, but once he made a slight appearance . . . well, he edged himself towards the limelight and people still ask for his story. One day . . .

    Reply
  25. What a larger-than-life character, Nicola. I think it must have been very difficult for the women of those arranged marriages to find happiness in their marriage. It’s the appeal of the marriage-of-convenience story that they do, of course.
    As for minor characters, as Janga said, one of mine was supposed to be very much in the background, but once he made a slight appearance . . . well, he edged himself towards the limelight and people still ask for his story. One day . . .

    Reply
  26. The great Jo Beverley wrote a minor character, Peregrine Perriam, who was a sort of aristocratic sleuth. I enjoyed him so much, I wrote to her to ask if she was writing a novel about him, and she said she would eventually. Later on, “Seduction in Silk” was published. His good humor in the face of danger was James Bond, Regency style.

    Reply
  27. The great Jo Beverley wrote a minor character, Peregrine Perriam, who was a sort of aristocratic sleuth. I enjoyed him so much, I wrote to her to ask if she was writing a novel about him, and she said she would eventually. Later on, “Seduction in Silk” was published. His good humor in the face of danger was James Bond, Regency style.

    Reply
  28. The great Jo Beverley wrote a minor character, Peregrine Perriam, who was a sort of aristocratic sleuth. I enjoyed him so much, I wrote to her to ask if she was writing a novel about him, and she said she would eventually. Later on, “Seduction in Silk” was published. His good humor in the face of danger was James Bond, Regency style.

    Reply
  29. The great Jo Beverley wrote a minor character, Peregrine Perriam, who was a sort of aristocratic sleuth. I enjoyed him so much, I wrote to her to ask if she was writing a novel about him, and she said she would eventually. Later on, “Seduction in Silk” was published. His good humor in the face of danger was James Bond, Regency style.

    Reply
  30. The great Jo Beverley wrote a minor character, Peregrine Perriam, who was a sort of aristocratic sleuth. I enjoyed him so much, I wrote to her to ask if she was writing a novel about him, and she said she would eventually. Later on, “Seduction in Silk” was published. His good humor in the face of danger was James Bond, Regency style.

    Reply
  31. And it’s one my favorite books, Mary Jo!
    I love minor characters and some of them so much so that I do a little party dance when I read a blurb and realize that it’s about them!
    That’s why I love reading series so much. I get to find out more about beloved ‘minor’ characters.
    As for Lady Craven, I think I’d like her more than the sticklers.

    Reply
  32. And it’s one my favorite books, Mary Jo!
    I love minor characters and some of them so much so that I do a little party dance when I read a blurb and realize that it’s about them!
    That’s why I love reading series so much. I get to find out more about beloved ‘minor’ characters.
    As for Lady Craven, I think I’d like her more than the sticklers.

    Reply
  33. And it’s one my favorite books, Mary Jo!
    I love minor characters and some of them so much so that I do a little party dance when I read a blurb and realize that it’s about them!
    That’s why I love reading series so much. I get to find out more about beloved ‘minor’ characters.
    As for Lady Craven, I think I’d like her more than the sticklers.

    Reply
  34. And it’s one my favorite books, Mary Jo!
    I love minor characters and some of them so much so that I do a little party dance when I read a blurb and realize that it’s about them!
    That’s why I love reading series so much. I get to find out more about beloved ‘minor’ characters.
    As for Lady Craven, I think I’d like her more than the sticklers.

    Reply
  35. And it’s one my favorite books, Mary Jo!
    I love minor characters and some of them so much so that I do a little party dance when I read a blurb and realize that it’s about them!
    That’s why I love reading series so much. I get to find out more about beloved ‘minor’ characters.
    As for Lady Craven, I think I’d like her more than the sticklers.

    Reply
  36. Thanks for a fascinating post, Nicola! There is a character in Amy Harmon’s contemporary romance Making Faces that is neither the hero nor the heroine but who definitely steals the show. (I don’t know if he could be described as a minor character though … hmm.)

    Reply
  37. Thanks for a fascinating post, Nicola! There is a character in Amy Harmon’s contemporary romance Making Faces that is neither the hero nor the heroine but who definitely steals the show. (I don’t know if he could be described as a minor character though … hmm.)

    Reply
  38. Thanks for a fascinating post, Nicola! There is a character in Amy Harmon’s contemporary romance Making Faces that is neither the hero nor the heroine but who definitely steals the show. (I don’t know if he could be described as a minor character though … hmm.)

    Reply
  39. Thanks for a fascinating post, Nicola! There is a character in Amy Harmon’s contemporary romance Making Faces that is neither the hero nor the heroine but who definitely steals the show. (I don’t know if he could be described as a minor character though … hmm.)

    Reply
  40. Thanks for a fascinating post, Nicola! There is a character in Amy Harmon’s contemporary romance Making Faces that is neither the hero nor the heroine but who definitely steals the show. (I don’t know if he could be described as a minor character though … hmm.)

    Reply
  41. Thank you, Mary Jo. Yes, it’s hard to imagine Lady Craven as the mother of one of the high sticklers at Almacks but I imagine they would both have been interesting people to know. I think the Ton was exactly like a small town actually -you have put your finger on it!
    It’s so interesting that minor characters can take over and demand their own book! I loved Angel Rogue too!

    Reply
  42. Thank you, Mary Jo. Yes, it’s hard to imagine Lady Craven as the mother of one of the high sticklers at Almacks but I imagine they would both have been interesting people to know. I think the Ton was exactly like a small town actually -you have put your finger on it!
    It’s so interesting that minor characters can take over and demand their own book! I loved Angel Rogue too!

    Reply
  43. Thank you, Mary Jo. Yes, it’s hard to imagine Lady Craven as the mother of one of the high sticklers at Almacks but I imagine they would both have been interesting people to know. I think the Ton was exactly like a small town actually -you have put your finger on it!
    It’s so interesting that minor characters can take over and demand their own book! I loved Angel Rogue too!

    Reply
  44. Thank you, Mary Jo. Yes, it’s hard to imagine Lady Craven as the mother of one of the high sticklers at Almacks but I imagine they would both have been interesting people to know. I think the Ton was exactly like a small town actually -you have put your finger on it!
    It’s so interesting that minor characters can take over and demand their own book! I loved Angel Rogue too!

    Reply
  45. Thank you, Mary Jo. Yes, it’s hard to imagine Lady Craven as the mother of one of the high sticklers at Almacks but I imagine they would both have been interesting people to know. I think the Ton was exactly like a small town actually -you have put your finger on it!
    It’s so interesting that minor characters can take over and demand their own book! I loved Angel Rogue too!

    Reply
  46. Haha! Yes, it’s always lovely to discover that a character you particularly like has their own story, and if they don’t, you want the author to write one!
    I think Lady C was probably very entertaining and definitely more fun than the high sticklers.

    Reply
  47. Haha! Yes, it’s always lovely to discover that a character you particularly like has their own story, and if they don’t, you want the author to write one!
    I think Lady C was probably very entertaining and definitely more fun than the high sticklers.

    Reply
  48. Haha! Yes, it’s always lovely to discover that a character you particularly like has their own story, and if they don’t, you want the author to write one!
    I think Lady C was probably very entertaining and definitely more fun than the high sticklers.

    Reply
  49. Haha! Yes, it’s always lovely to discover that a character you particularly like has their own story, and if they don’t, you want the author to write one!
    I think Lady C was probably very entertaining and definitely more fun than the high sticklers.

    Reply
  50. Haha! Yes, it’s always lovely to discover that a character you particularly like has their own story, and if they don’t, you want the author to write one!
    I think Lady C was probably very entertaining and definitely more fun than the high sticklers.

    Reply
  51. Sue, I think you’re right – it was always all about her! Even when she was behaving scandalously she blamed everyone else for her bad behaviour and she aways had to be the centre of attention. Not ever likeable but certainly a character! I wonder if that’s why Lady Sefton was always said to be very kind, because her mother was not!

    Reply
  52. Sue, I think you’re right – it was always all about her! Even when she was behaving scandalously she blamed everyone else for her bad behaviour and she aways had to be the centre of attention. Not ever likeable but certainly a character! I wonder if that’s why Lady Sefton was always said to be very kind, because her mother was not!

    Reply
  53. Sue, I think you’re right – it was always all about her! Even when she was behaving scandalously she blamed everyone else for her bad behaviour and she aways had to be the centre of attention. Not ever likeable but certainly a character! I wonder if that’s why Lady Sefton was always said to be very kind, because her mother was not!

    Reply
  54. Sue, I think you’re right – it was always all about her! Even when she was behaving scandalously she blamed everyone else for her bad behaviour and she aways had to be the centre of attention. Not ever likeable but certainly a character! I wonder if that’s why Lady Sefton was always said to be very kind, because her mother was not!

    Reply
  55. Sue, I think you’re right – it was always all about her! Even when she was behaving scandalously she blamed everyone else for her bad behaviour and she aways had to be the centre of attention. Not ever likeable but certainly a character! I wonder if that’s why Lady Sefton was always said to be very kind, because her mother was not!

    Reply
  56. Thank you, Janga, yes I love some of those secondary characters too, especially the Lisa Kleypas one!
    I’d love to find out more about Lady Sefton as part of my Craven family research. It’s been surprisingly difficult. Some members of the family such as Lady Craven and her eldest son are quite well documented but others much less so. All interesting people though.

    Reply
  57. Thank you, Janga, yes I love some of those secondary characters too, especially the Lisa Kleypas one!
    I’d love to find out more about Lady Sefton as part of my Craven family research. It’s been surprisingly difficult. Some members of the family such as Lady Craven and her eldest son are quite well documented but others much less so. All interesting people though.

    Reply
  58. Thank you, Janga, yes I love some of those secondary characters too, especially the Lisa Kleypas one!
    I’d love to find out more about Lady Sefton as part of my Craven family research. It’s been surprisingly difficult. Some members of the family such as Lady Craven and her eldest son are quite well documented but others much less so. All interesting people though.

    Reply
  59. Thank you, Janga, yes I love some of those secondary characters too, especially the Lisa Kleypas one!
    I’d love to find out more about Lady Sefton as part of my Craven family research. It’s been surprisingly difficult. Some members of the family such as Lady Craven and her eldest son are quite well documented but others much less so. All interesting people though.

    Reply
  60. Thank you, Janga, yes I love some of those secondary characters too, especially the Lisa Kleypas one!
    I’d love to find out more about Lady Sefton as part of my Craven family research. It’s been surprisingly difficult. Some members of the family such as Lady Craven and her eldest son are quite well documented but others much less so. All interesting people though.

    Reply
  61. Hi Anne, yes it is a very good example of a marriage of convenience that just wasn’t destined for happiness. I think she was much more happy in her second marriage, however, although having the title Princess might have helped!

    Reply
  62. Hi Anne, yes it is a very good example of a marriage of convenience that just wasn’t destined for happiness. I think she was much more happy in her second marriage, however, although having the title Princess might have helped!

    Reply
  63. Hi Anne, yes it is a very good example of a marriage of convenience that just wasn’t destined for happiness. I think she was much more happy in her second marriage, however, although having the title Princess might have helped!

    Reply
  64. Hi Anne, yes it is a very good example of a marriage of convenience that just wasn’t destined for happiness. I think she was much more happy in her second marriage, however, although having the title Princess might have helped!

    Reply
  65. Hi Anne, yes it is a very good example of a marriage of convenience that just wasn’t destined for happiness. I think she was much more happy in her second marriage, however, although having the title Princess might have helped!

    Reply
  66. I just read this book and LOVED it. Looking forward to the Phantom Tree. I just love how research and feed a minor character development and the book is just not the same without them. So much goes into it!

    Reply
  67. I just read this book and LOVED it. Looking forward to the Phantom Tree. I just love how research and feed a minor character development and the book is just not the same without them. So much goes into it!

    Reply
  68. I just read this book and LOVED it. Looking forward to the Phantom Tree. I just love how research and feed a minor character development and the book is just not the same without them. So much goes into it!

    Reply
  69. I just read this book and LOVED it. Looking forward to the Phantom Tree. I just love how research and feed a minor character development and the book is just not the same without them. So much goes into it!

    Reply
  70. I just read this book and LOVED it. Looking forward to the Phantom Tree. I just love how research and feed a minor character development and the book is just not the same without them. So much goes into it!

    Reply

Leave a Comment