This has to be the worst book I have ever read. I may not have read Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey, but I'm sure this is comparable to them. The writing is bad, the characters are bad, and the plot is just annoying. I made sure to take notes while I was reading so I could point out all the problems with it but there were times when I was just too annoyed to even complain some more so these aren't all my grievances with this novel. Overall, it felt like a Downton Abbey OC fanfic written by a melodramatic teenager with no prior writing experience.

Some circumstances felt eerily too similar to Downton. For example, we need to find a husband/duke for Mary/Daphne and what do we do about an unwanted baby where a pregnancy needs to be concealed so Edith/Daphne go abroad to learn French, and the house turns into a convalescent home. Maybe the Rose-type names and mention of Lavinia were references to it?

The narration was terrible. I was annoyed with the voice from the get-go, the head-hopping was confusing and terrible to deal with and it wasn't even necessary to see things from everyone's perspective all the time. There was so much info dump (and there was no attempt to even make it seamless, it was just one character telling another character a lot of info they'd already know and wouldn't need to hear again in such a context or length), the descriptions were unnecessary (like the descriptions of characters, who they were related to, what they did, etc. all in narration and all unnecessary, sometimes even done for characters already introduced), actions described were unnecessary (exactly which hand rested where), and the sentence structure was often just terrible (there were tons of ellipses). Chapter ends and scene ends were poor, transitions were bad, the language didn't feel right for the time (some idioms felt out of place, but also the word choice felt wrong), I was constantly being bashed over the head with repeated info (this manor rightfully belongs to Hugo), and there were too many pointless characters which resulted in so many names to keep track of.

The Inghams do not come off aristocratic enough (why apologize to servants - especially in most of the circumstances they do), words are capitalized during shouting (it doesn't need to be - it should be apparent otherwise), clothing is described way too often (and usually using the exact same words), and the narration, though third person, often felt like it was trying to be first person (and it may have lapsed here and there, such as when "Mama" was used instead of the countess' name, title, relationship, etc.). I believe there was even one scene where the earl is described as not being as snobbish as the other aristocracy and it felt terribly immodest of the narrator (and also more "telling"). He doesn't seem awfully concerned about gossip concerning him sleeping with his servant, but I doubt that would be the case; it's unlikely an earl would not try to keep such a relationship secret. There was just no British stoicism to the family at all.

The blood oath thing was weird and pointless, too. Loyalty doesn't need a blood oath and it just added a whole new layer of ridiculousness to the story. Despite the loyalty, however, no one seems to think it necessary to tell the earl that his wife was cheating on him because "none of us want to hurt" him. Also, they family was way too familiar with their servants. And it doesn't even seem like the Swanns were even needed since everything seemed to fall in place with everyone being so gosh darn nice to and supportive of each other.

The author needs to learn to show instead of telling. If I need to be told something is "obviously" the case then you did a bad job describing it or you're being redundant. Other times, everything would have the heck explained out of it instead of just showing me through meaningful actions or words (saying "history is my hobby" really doesn't count, though). The writing was sloppy, too. There was one scene where a character was described as alive in one sentence then dead in the next and it was really jarring; the paragraph could've been constructed much better. Everything was so over-dramatic, too.

The letter that the earl received in the beginning was one of many info dump examples. Hey, here's everything that happened in my life since you last saw me - not like it can't wait until we meet in person since apparently it needs to be revealed now. When one of the girls ruined Daphne's dress, they were too polite about it (this type of "these things do happen" attitude is too modern). One of the younger daughters also speak way too mature for her age and just saying she's mature (especially considering the narration and circumstances surrounding her) doesn't cut it.

There were often unnecessary scenes, such as when the little girl had a tantrum over her dress, and annoying narration where a character was introduced but in a way unbefitting their relationship (she sees a little girl enter the room when she could've just said she sees her younger sister come in - it was narrated as though it were a random girl). Another scene is Charles describing his apparent impotence as though it had any relevance (the entire subplot revolving him, his wife, and Charlotte were entirely unnecessary).

The rape scene may be the worst scene in the entire book. "He raped her" was an actual sentence in the book - and it was even used with unnecessary descriptions of the act, not instead of it. Also, the woman was also bent over after having just been flipped around to face the attacker.

There was one scene where a character was describing someone's beauty while they were grieving and it was wildly inappropriate and unnecessary. There must be other scenes his fondness could've been explained. And any scene with the gypsy was pointless. She existed only to make it seem like there would be a tough journey ahead and there would be tragedy but it failed, she failed, and over all her character was not needed nor appreciated.

The maid and the footmen were also pointlessly followed. They really were just there to say "hey, there's a peeper here" where any other character could've done it, even one of the other workers; their story was unnecessary. Their "sex" scene in the woods was so bad, and even though the footman is so full of himself he's apparently still not pushy for sex (but still fingers her and she's okay with it even if she doesn't want to give it up again). He's so contrary! I'm vain but I still am sensitive to you but not really; it just makes my head spin at the excuses the writers tried to make it work. He oddly enough felt like Thomas from Downton so I wonder if this was more fantasy writing.

When Daphne gets married, it seems she keeps her last name and takes her husband's. I doubt such a thing was done back then and it just felt weird to read it (not to mention the terrible Harry Potter like epilogue baby naming). The baby was also super attractive, like apparently everyone else in the family who is just so irresistible that we need to be told over and over again of their beauty, and the nurse, whom usually doesn't stick around long, decides to stay to take care of her but won't allow the family to touch her. Also, the youngest child was referred to as a Botticelli angel at least three times by my count. Are there no other ways to exaggerate their apparent beauty?

The gender equality shown was also unbelievable. I can understand pieces here and there, but a full blown 21st style equality isn't understandable. Saying the the women have every right to hear what he has to say may not have been the case in real life, and "Ingham women don't weep" is a poor saying because most of them cried so often. One woman was even described as the "smartest woman in business" and it doesn't seem like that would mean much at the time considering how many of them there actually were - and the actuality of such a comment being stated is again ridiculous.

Sex was also spoken about far too casually. Everyone was unabashed, it was treated as perfectly fine instead of secretive and shameful, and everyone was so forward about it in conversation. This really doesn't feel right for the period at all.

Charles and Charlotte's relationship was another fault. The forceful kissing was bad, the sex scene was terrible and pointless, the continued belief that the two families are irresistible to each other is again bashed into my face, and it's apparently okay that both a father and son loved the same woman even though the father was much older (but he waited until she was 21!) and he didn't pursue her until long after his own father's death. The hatred turned towards the mother was also pointless, as though her role was only to get out of the house so that he could finally be with his true love from the family that he can't resist. The hatred came from nowhere and the coldness still wasn't explained properly; she just became another woman that existed just to further one point not even necessary to the plot - especially when she leaves behind her beloved children even though her coldness was further triggered by the attempted abduction of her child.

There were times when the author would start talking about history and I couldn't take her seriously at all. I almost wondered if it was sexism on my part but I dismissed that notion because the author had already made herself unworthy of respect through her writing and plot - there was no way I could take her narration on history seriously after all the other stuff I'd been shown.

Hugo threatening Torbett at the end was ridiculous. Am I really to believe a man that has been in the army this long and has seen so much death around him really wet his pants because some punk soldier threatened him? Laughable. And for him to be begging so sincerely even though he was shown to be such an apparent menace? Unlikely. He became yet another character that existed only for the plot and not for himself (there really was no reason given for his actions other than him being both a pervert and an apparent pedophile). Also, having the other soldier leading him to his death was another poor decision. In the end, he might as well have killed him instead of having the other guy beg for his release only to lie to him and lead him to his death. Why would he even do that? There wasn't really any comradery explained between the two men so why should he have believed what Hugo had told him and then indirectly kill the man without a thought? Seems like cowardice on the author's part to not have Hugo have anything to do with Torbett's murder.

The ending was also just terrible; it couldn't even wrap things up properly. Dorothy poorly treats a customer all because her worker gets upset over hearing something; this is unprofessional and unlikely. The forgotten and rarely mentioned romance between Miles and the servant girl ending was just too over dramatic (and again, his brother seem to exist then die only so that Miles could be the next heir and die unhappy without his irresistible servant girl as his woman); I can't believe that he cried all the way home regardless of his feelings. And of course, the novel ends with no final wrap up for any of the characters except Miles' sad ending; how we were supposed to care for a man we barely saw in the story and for a romance that was rarely mentioned is beyond me. For all the time we spent with Daphne, at least we could've ended with her.

I would never recommend this book to anyone. Again, this feels like it was written by an inexperienced teenager who fantasizes about how things should be in life and how nice everyone should be to each other about situations that would definitely elicit different reactions. I don't want to read badly written unrealistic fantasies when I pick up historical fiction; I expect it to stay true to the genre and the period and not be attacked by modern beliefs.