[...] There you will find more Infos: dearauthor.com/book-reviews/review-untouched-by-anna-campbell [...]…

Guardianship ended at 21. A will could say that money could be witheld until 25 or withheld if a person married withut permisison before age 25, but guardianship ended at 21. There was no way for a parent to set up a guardianship past age 21 for a disabled child. Even when a person was seen as not being all there mentally, the most that usually could be done was to put a trustee over the money.

If anyone thought he needed to be kept in protective custody, they would have to go to Chancery court and have the person declared a lunatic or an imbecile and get permission for someone to handle the estate.

A committee would be appointed to investigate the mental capacity of the man and only after a report was made by this committee would the court decide whether a guardian was needed at all.

As the courts also believed that ‘lunaticks’ could have lucid intervals during which they could be free to do whatever they want, the chances of an uncle being allowed to keep a marquess incarcerated are slim.

Also, marquesses usually have a great deal of property which should be under the control of trustees. These trustees become liable for losses if they give any power to a self described guardian at any time, but particularly after the marquess is twenty one.

Much easier to hold a female and have her declared incompetent.

This also supposes that there were no other relatives.
There are circumstances where this plot might work, but not if the man is corresponding with others and there is other family.
If Lord John is the oldest surviving brother he is the heir, unless an older brother, besides the marquess’s father, died and left a son.

So the guardianship is the main stumbling block, if we assume that Lord John is the youngest brother.

In case you’re wondering, the hero, who holds a courtesy title, is the heir to his grandfather’s title through his mother. In that case he wouldn’t have been entitled to use the courtesy title, and there was no explanation as to how the title was allowed to pass through the female line.

It annoyed me because it made no difference to the story. So in my mind, I reversed his parents and made his father the heir, and then it was all right. Because I loved the story, and it swept me away. Maybe Campbell didn’t quite achieve that, for me anyway.

And speaking of that, can I pimp a totally different book, Kate Hardy’s “Surrender to the Sheikh”? Ignore the title. I loved this book, absolutely loved it. It’s part of the July offerings from Harlequin Presents and it was a Mills and Boon May Modern book.

I had the reply from the expert, and I was right about the guardianship, and actually there was something else, too. I’m waiting for her permission to quote.

But I totally understand why the whole set up kept throwing you out of the story. Once the mind latches onto something, it’s hard to refocus. ;)

I liked Untouched, but I don’t remember how well or what I didn’t, if anything. I do seem to recall that I thought the elapsed time too short for a convincing HEA.

From the book:

“While I'm alive and confined, my uncle plays the man of importance.”

The word alive struck her. “And if you die?”

“The title goes to my cousin Hector. If he meets his maker, a string of younger brothers line up for the marquessate. My father produced one sickly descendant and Lord John has thrown only girls, four of them. Uncle Charles hatched a brood of six husky boys before he broke his neck in a hunting accident.”

“And Lord John returns to being merely a younger son.” Her fingers clenched in his sleeve. How could he bear what his uncle did to him? Her belly cramped on a surge of futile rage. “He wants you healthy but under his control? Like an animal in a menagerie? It's obscene.”

That is actually wrong in one instance. The title will go to the oldest living male descendant. If Charles is older than John, then yes, the cousins will get it, but if John is the elder, (it says he’s a “younger son” but then they all are compared to Matthew’s father) he gets it.

So why aren’t the cousins allowed to see Lord Sheene and why don’t they make a fuss? After all, Matthew could be dead and the doctors don’t count, as they are paid employees. The test of competency had to be by a panel of peers. (again, Kinsale does that in “Flowers.”) If John was the youngest (but I’m sure I read along the way that he was the next oldest – I’ve scoured the book and I can’t find it) and Hector’s children were the heirs, they or their guardians had the right to audit and insist on independent checks.

My main problem was the guardianship. It wasn’t a legal one, and in the event of a father dying before his son’s majority, a group of people were appointed, not just one, and none of them had to have a vested interest in the estate. These people weren’t daft and where a large estate and title was concerned, failsafes were put in place.

Lord John wouldn’t have had control of the total estate. Checks would be in place to ensure he didn’t misuse it, and to ensure that his nephew had regular checkups.

I’ve asked a real expert to check my reasoning, in case I’ve got it wrong.

Maybe it’s the whole twirling-moustache thing that got to me, if you see what I mean.

Oh yes, and the abuse Matthew got especially towards the end. Internal injuries much? At that point I thought “I thought he wanted to keep Matthew alive?”

The thing was, I kept wanting to like it, and I kept stumbling on it. She has a great voice but maybe a bit more grounding and a bit less melodrama might be the answer.

In that scenario as I described above, what happens if Boris dies before Colin inherits? Bennett inherits and then Colin after him, but Boris (second oldest son) never inherits himself, but he has two sons. I thought in that scenario Christopher and then Clamshell would inherit next before Bradley.

When Anthony dies, Bennett inherits the title. Then Bennett dies. Colin, his son, inherits but he is declared unsound, so a guardian must be found.

(here’s the first error – neither Boris nor Bradley would be appointed his legal guardian because they have something to gain from Colin’s death. The guardian would be someone from his mother’s family or a family friend, or even a legal person, and it would likely be several, not one. There would be trustees for the estate, to oversee it during the child’s minority or incapaciation. Laura Kinsale handled this aspect well in “Flowers From the Storm” where his mother brought him up, but didn’t have total jurisdiction over his estate. It would never be allowed to rest in the hands of one person).

Okay, so Bradley, his oldest surviving uncle, takes the guardianship.

Colin dies. Since he doesn’t have any sons or brothers, they have to go back to the last holder of the title with surviving sons. That’s Anthony. The next person in line for the title is Anthony’s oldest surviving son. Bradley becomes the next title holder.

If Boris is the next in age, then he and his sons claim the title, but in “Untouched” the other son is said to be younger than the villain at one point, and it would be him, not his sons, who inherited.

If Bradley dies, then Boris and his sons get it. But only then.

It’s a lot easier if you look at it diagramatically. Then it explains itself.

2. If a branch of the family tree fails, it's traced back to the trunk, not to another branch. In other words, if Matthew died without issue, the next heir would be the oldest surviving son of the last title holder. His uncle would have inherited. No reason to keep the poor boy alive.

I had no idea. I always thought it went oldest son, next-oldest, etc., so if there were 3 sons A, B, and C and A died, A’s son D would be next, but if D died, then B would inherit or his offspring, if he had a son.

So, if A and D and then B died, C would inherit even though B had offspring?

1. In English law at that time you couldn’t be appointed a legal guardian if you stood to gain by the person’s death. So the uncle would have been disbarred from doing it in law.

2. If a branch of the family tree fails, it’s traced back to the trunk, not to another branch. In other words, if Matthew died without issue, the next heir would be the oldest surviving son of the last title holder. His uncle would have inherited. No reason to keep the poor boy alive.

I kept thinking about that, and it did spoil it a bit for me. And there wasn’t enough period detail for me. It could have been any time in history, apart from a brief mention of the Duke of Wellington. Waisted gowns (in 1820?) and drawers (not yet) were a bit of a jarring note as well.

But I did enjoy her voice and I read to the end of the book. Have to agree – a tad melodramatic.

And am I alone in wanting more history in my historical romance?

Susan: I have Norman’s The Vizard Mask, but I haven’t read it yet. I need to, though, because everyone raves about her. Thanks for another rec.

Barbara: I hadn’t really thought of Untouched as a failure, but you are right that it wasn’t a success for me, at least not in the way I wanted it to be. I definitely think Campbell’s books are worth reading because she really is a new voice in the genre, even if this time around the voice felt somewhat muted to me.

Kristie: I think most readers liked this one more than I did, and I’m happy about that, because I think without all the controversy that Claiming the Courtesan had people can really talk about the book and not *just* the forced seduction issue. One of the reasons I think I was harder on this one is that I know captivity narratives so well, and so I tend to bring that with me as a reader. Definitely agree with you, though, about the first love scene. Those are the places I really enjoy seeing Campbell break out of the box!