Hmm. My problem isn’t the lack of realism, per se (I think it’s impressively researched – I wish more historical romances were this assured), it’s the glossing over of so many issues that deserve more detail or at least some acknowledgment.

For example, the little Russian Countess living her life of decadence before the revolution… I think of the feudal system in Russian and the millions of downtrodden peasants before the war, and (even knowing what comes next), feel no sympathy for the downfall of the aristocracy. So, right from the start, I don’t feel Anna’s loss.

But how is that different, really, from the many earl and duke heroes that we see in historical romances? At least Anna’s family treated their servants well and was relatively egalitarian, and, if I’m not mistaken, Anna had sympathy for the downtrodden peasants. To me, Anna’s loss wasn’t about the loss of status or material things, but the loss of her home and the death of her father.

I don’t feel that Ibbotson is unaware of these issues or that her sympathies are only with the aristocracy. In Madensky Square, which is set in Vienna around 1910, the heroine of the secondary storyline is a passionate anarchist.

I think Anna’s enthusiasm for being a housemaid is like that of a rich girl slumming it for the holidays.

I don’t see it in that light. I think she’s trying to make the best of her situation, and that she’s the kind of person who would try to find something beautiful to delight in no matter where she was. I’ve said before that I think Ibbotson is influenced by Frances Hodgson Burnett and I see echoes of A Little Princess in A Countess Below Stairs.

Servants lived liked drudges and it was only during/ after the end of the war that the old class system finally began to crumble – and good riddance.

Yes, and I think that in some ways the book deals with this crumbling (for example, when Ibbotson talks about Proom working alongside the maids during the war). And again, I ask you, how is this different from so many regency romances and other historicals we read where the heroes are members of the aristocracy? At least in this book, the driving concern for Rupert and the reason for his engagement to Muriel is that the servants not lose their positions. He is willing to give up his freedom for that, which is more concern than most romance heroes show.

Also, in this book, the servants are given personalities and treated as human beings worth caring about. They get almost as much page space as the hero and heroine. That’s not something I see in most of the historical romances I read.

Curtseying to the butler? Too much.

I agree, but this is exactly the kind of thing I mean when I say that humor requires some exaggeration. It was there for the reader to laugh at.

Also, while it is too much, how would Anna know any better? She is not only not trained as a servant, but she is also an immigrant in what to her is a foreign land. She is bound to make mistakes even if she tries her best.

Cleaning Milton’s marble head might be a pleasure for Anna, but I think grumpy, uncouth Louise (an actual housemaid) has my sympathy, because to her, all it will ever be is a bloody marble head she has to dust endlessly.

I don’t think Ibbotson wants you to choose between liking Anna and liking Louise. I think Ibbotson likes them both and treats them both with fondness.

Also, some people actually enjoy cleaning, no matter how many times they do it. My mom is one. I on the other hand, never enjoy it. I don’t think the book makes a value judgment on that.

The lecherous uncle, groping all the young maids – except Anna, because she shares his appreciation of classical music? I’m still feeling sorry for the actual maids.

I agree with you on this one. I felt sorry for the maids too, although they didn’t feel sorry for themselves. However, I didn’t hold this against Anna.

Lucky Anna, the ‘incandescent fledgling’, has some innate air of refinement that deflects casual sexual abuse the other vulgar, lower-class maids have to endure…

I don’t think it is innate — I think it was her love of the same music that the uncle love, which was something she had learned. Now if Anna was like the heroine of Heyer’s These Old Shades and had been raised as a commoner but was accepted by everyone as an aristocrat, I would agree with you. But since she was raised as an aristocrat and given the social polish they had by her parents and governesses, I don’t see Ibbotson as making any statement of innate worthiness in aristocrats here.

You see?! I can’t read the book without prickling. It’s like the working class political student in me bristles every time I read a passage idealising the upstairs/ downstairs element of the English country house. It’s too twee.

LOL. I think most of Ibbotson’s books are fairy tales and I don’t think she is making any categoric statements about upstairs / downstairs life in the English country house. To the contrary I think she shows with Muriel’s approach that not everyone upstairs was a benevolent master the way Rupert’s family was. I don’t think Mersham is meant to be realistic or representative of the system. I think Ibbotson knows that it isn’t, and therefore, most of the things you mention didn’t bother me.

Similarly, eugenics, in that time and place… A significant portion of the English upper class shared Muriel’s interest, and there was considerable sympathy for fascism and Hitler (within the Royal family, for example). So whilst Muriel’s interest is utterly believable, I don’t find it comedic, because it isn’t an exaggeration. It’s the nasty, dirty secret of the English aristocracy.

I think Ibbotson condemns it pretty strongly, as you’ll see if you keep reading. But I also think she uses it to poke fun at Muriel and Dr. Lightbody at the same time.

(Although, I do find it amusing as a romance reader: The Other Woman is often a skanky ho, or manipulative and evil. Closet Nazi? That’s a first).

But, in the context of this story, Muriel isn’t an “other Woman.” She is the fiancee. Anna is the “Other Woman” — the woman Rupert is at least in his heart, unfaithful to his fiancee with. I’m pointing it out because I think it’s an interesting role reversal and Ibbotson’s books are often full of such.

Anyway, I haven’t read your review yet, but once I finish the book, I look forward to finding out what makes it work for you. I hope you don’t mind my rant – when I feel this strongly about a book, I like to share….

Nope, don’t mind at all. You might like Madensky Square better than this book. The heroine of that book is the mistress of a married man and the secondary heroine an anarchist, as I mentioned above. So there’s more moral ambiguity there, which it sounds like you are looking for.

For example, the little Russian Countess living her life of decadence before the revolution… I think of the feudal system in Russian and the millions of downtrodden peasants before the war, and (even knowing what comes next), feel no sympathy for the downfall of the aristocracy. So, right from the start, I don’t feel Anna’s loss.

I think Anna’s enthusiasm for being a housemaid is like that of a rich girl slumming it for the holidays. Servants lived liked drudges and it was only during/ after the end of the war that the old class system finally began to crumble – and good riddance.

Curtseying to the butler? Too much.

Cleaning Milton’s marble head might be a pleasure for Anna, but I think grumpy, uncouth Louise (an actual housemaid) has my sympathy, because to her, all it will ever be is a bloody marble head she has to dust endlessly.

The lecherous uncle, groping all the young maids – except Anna, because she shares his appreciation of classical music? I’m still feeling sorry for the actual maids. Lucky Anna, the ‘incandescent fledgling’, has some innate air of refinement that deflects casual sexual abuse the other vulgar, lower-class maids have to endure…

You see?! I can’t read the book without prickling. It’s like the working class political student in me bristles every time I read a passage idealising the upstairs/ downstairs element of the English country house. It’s too twee.

Similarly, eugenics, in that time and place… A significant portion of the English upper class shared Muriel’s interest, and there was considerable sympathy for fascism and Hitler (within the Royal family, for example). So whilst Muriel’s interest is utterly believable, I don’t find it comedic, because it isn’t an exaggeration. It’s the nasty, dirty secret of the English aristocracy. (Although, I do find it amusing as a romance reader: The Other Woman is often a skanky ho, or manipulative and evil. Closet Nazi? That’s a first).

Anyway, I haven’t read your review yet, but once I finish the book, I look forward to finding out what makes it work for you. I hope you don’t mind my rant – when I feel this strongly about a book, I like to share….

As I said, I love the writing, but everything else makes me want to scream.

I’m going to finish it (I can’t not finish a book, even if it takes me months to get round to it) but maybe I’ll list the reasons I’m so unhappy at the moment, and then see if Ibbotson addresses them as the story progresses? Perhaps she’ll teach me not to draw conclusions so early in a book: Maybe the eugenicist will turn out to be a multi-faceted and worthy contender for Rupert’s heart…

This is some info on Ibbotson’s mother; http://www.persephonebooks.co.uk/pages/authors/anna_gmeyner.htm

Enjoy :)

Great review Janine.