
The Lady Behind the Masquerade
Diane Gaston’s The Lady Behind the Masquerade is book two in her A Family of Scandals series, but I don’t think it’s necessary to have read the previous book in order to get to grips with this one. It’s the story of a young woman who has to call on every bit of her grit, determination and resourcefulness to get herself out of a very difficult (and potentially dangerous) situation, and make a new life for herself. I’ll say now that if deception isn’t something you care for in a romance, this may not be the book for you, but the author does a good job of revealing why the heroine acts as she does and evokes the reader’s sympathy for her.
Having accompanied a friend to a Parisian gaming club one evening, diplomat Marcus Wolfdon finds himself quietly watching a most intriguing young woman playing at vingt-et-un. Her beauty, together with the indefinable air of mystery that surrounds her, have him captivated, but he’s also sure she’s counting cards, which won’t go well for her if the house finds out. When she leaves the table, clearly bothered by her losses, Wolf approaches her to commiserate; he knows the house was cheating as well as she does, and offers to see her home. The young woman, who gives her name only as Fleur, accepts his offer, and then invites him in when they arrive. This hadn’t been Wolf’s intention when he had offered his escort, but he can’t deny he’d hoped for the invitation. When he awakens next morning, not only is the lovely Fleur gone, so is his purse. Damn. It’s the oldest trick in the book, and he still managed to fall for it.
Several months later, Wolf, who has not set foot in England for a decade, has returned in response to a summons from his sister telling him that their father’s health is precarious. When Wolf gets home, it’s to find Sir John somewhat improved, and the family poised to repair to Brighton where they’ve been advised that the sea air will be beneficial. That the town is highly fashionable thanks to its association with the Prince Regent is its primary attraction, however. As soon as they arrive, his mother insists they need to go to the Circulating Library in order to leave their names for the Master of Ceremonies (the man who arranges invitations to the Assemblies and other Brighton entertainments); whilst there she spies two ladies, one of whom she’s acquainted with, the other she is not. Wolf later recognises the former as Lady Ashcroft, who is accompanied by her husband, the Earl, both good friends of the family. The other, who is introduced as the countess’ cousin, Juliana Walsh, is none other than the woman Wolf had known only as Fleur, who made love to him like a dream – and then robbed him while he was asleep.
Juliana can’t believe her bad luck. She had thought, with regret, never to see her handsome Englishman again, yet here he is, standing in right front of her, face like a thundercloud. Thinking quickly, Juliana excuses herself but signals for Wolf to follow her outside; in a secluded alcove she explains that she’d been abandoned in Paris by her father, who had died leaving her entirely without the means to return to England. Wolf is sceptical, but agrees to keep her secret while thinking to himself that he’ll keep a careful watch on her… and not just because he’s as beguiled by her now as he was in Paris.
It is quickly apparent that this secret is just one of many Juliana is keeping, and that she has to decide very carefully how much she can reveal to Wolf without continuing to arouse his suspicions. I admired her for her ingenuity and determination to keep herself safe – both from the man she holds ultimately responsible for her father’s fate, and also to keep herself from destitution. Yes, she’s practicing a deception upon some very good people, and I did think that perhaps she should have trusted them earlier than she does, but on the other hand, a lone woman in the nineteenth century had very few options, and for Juliana it was a case of telling a few falsehoods – with no ulterior motive than to keep a roof over her head – or starve on the streets.
Wolf is a strong, sexy romantic hero, and is clearly completely smitten with Juliana from the start, but his infatuation doesn’t blind him to the fact that she’s not quite what she seems and he becomes determined to find out exactly what she’s hiding. They have strong chemistry, and despite Wolf’s mistrust and Juliana’s fears of exposure, the pull they feel towards each other is impossible to ignore, and they embark on a passionate affair, even though they both know it’s a very bad idea. But I was irritated by the number of times they take several steps backward; Wolf will just have decided to trust Juliana, then something happens to show him she’s still not being completely truthful, and he goes back to growly, suspicious mode. It’s repetitive and it got old quickly.
There’s an interesting secondary plotline involving Wolf’s parents, the Ashcrofts and a French gentleman named Gravier, who is drumming up investors for a scheme to find sunken treasure off the coast of Malta. The reader will quickly develop suspicions about the man and the scheme, and I liked the way the storyline sheds a bit more light on Wolf’s relationship with his parents, who I can only describe as rather flighty and irresponsible. His father’s tendency to make bad investments has seen Wolf’s brother-in-law, the Marquess of Hale, take over the family purse-strings, purely to prevent their ruin, but Gravier’s scheme calls to Sir John like a siren song, and Wolf knows he needs to act quickly to prevent the Ashcrofts being drawn in also.
The other big problem I had with the story is with the resolution to this plotline. A blast from Juliana’s past turns up like the proverbial bad penny, which raises the stakes considerably, but the convoluted plan that Wolf, Hale and their friends come up with to foil the villain’s schemes is utterly ludicrous – and they’re all surprised when it doesn’t work! It is, of course, left up to Juliana to save the day in an equally unlikely way, thus proving once and for all that she’s not one of the Bad Guys. But it’s a let-down, and I’ve amended my final grade downwards accordingly.
I was surprised when Ms. Gaston casually mentions that both Lady Ashcroft and Juliana have/could inherit titles owing to the deaths of their father/brother – an author who has written over thirty UK-set historical romances should know better. There are, it is true, a very small number of English titles that can pass through the female line, (and more Scottish ones) but despite the change, in 2013, of the rule for the Royal succession, there has been NO change in the laws of primogeniture relating to peerages. I realise this isn’t something that will bother most readers, but it bothered me and took me out of the story each time it was mentioned.
The Lady Behind the Masquerade is a well-written and enjoyable read, but the poorly thought-out (and silly) plot resolution and the too-frequent ‘I can trust you now – oh, wait – no, I can’t’ between Wolf and Juliana leave me at a middling grade overall and a qualified recommendation.






I haven’t tried Gaston’s work yet, and her ratings are all over the board here; gonna see what her next book brings.
i’d probably have gone to a B had it not been for that daft plotline to thwart the baddies, and the overdone I trust you – oops! you’re lying to me again so now I’m going to get all suspicious – I trust you again – and now I don’t… etc. It goes on too long.
I am confused. If there were a few, why doesn’t it work here? And how does 2013 relate? Thanks!
The law of inheritance for the Royals was changed in 2013 – but it hasn’t changed for any other members of the aristocracy. So while the eldest female child can now inherit the throne (if Princess Charlotte was older than Prince George, for instance, she would become queen – before 2013, the first son would inherit regardless of whether he was the oldest child or not) other titles (apart from a few and more in Scotland) still have to pass through the male line, i.e, the eldest son. Having titles pass through the female line in England is very rare (there are about 30, I think?); it would have been unlikely enough for one of these ladies to inherit a title that way, but two? Extremely unlikely.
If the author had actually pointed out how rare this is, and explained it, I probably wouldn’t have mentioned it. As is, it really bugged me!
The heroine of Sabrina Jeffries’ How the Scoundrel Seduces (2014) is one of these rare females to inherit a title, and the author makes it very clear how unusual it is. When poking around to try to find the title of this book, I found that you had reviewed it, Caz!
Heh. And yes, I think I remember it. IIRC it’s more likely to happen with the oldest titles – and I read that there have been petitions in the Lords more recently to change the laws of primogeniture to align them with the change made for the RF, but it hasn’t happened yet.
I do think this is the battle over HR. Many writers now want to say “It could happen. And so I’m having my leads do stuff that, IRL, it’s wildly unlikely.”
And that, in a nutshell, is why I read so little HR now………..
I’ve never been one to say that something was impossible or never happened, because I know that there are always exceptions and pioneers and that someone has to be the “first”. The problem is that in the mad scramble to write HR that would appeal to the post #metoo reader, EVERY heroine runs a tavern/gaming hell/orphanage or wants to be a doctor or a pioneering scientist and doesn’t give a fig for convention. And it’s boring.
I would be okay with the thumbs-her-nose-at-convention heroines if they faced any significant consequences of their actions. But you know going into these novels that all the good characters will quickly realize that the heroine’s boldness and independence are qualities to be cherished, and the rest of society will fall into line. Sometimes it feels like at the end, the heroine has it all – a successful career, the ton’s admiration, a rich young handsome duke for a husband, and so on. I can’t suspend disbelief enough to enjoy the escapism.
Agreed. And also, if they are financially independent. The consequences of such unconventionality for a young woman of the middle/upper classes could have lead to complete ostracism, so unless she had money of her own, she couldn’t have afforded to thumb her nose at convention. Which, tbf, the author does show here – although Juliana isn’t aiming at being a trailblazer, just at keeping herself housed, clothed and fed.
And that absence of consequences is also part of what makes the characters themselves absolutely unbelievable. While I love unconventional historical heroines in theory, in practice, the current HR version of these characters never feels realistic to me. They’re mostly just standard stereotypical HR heroines with “genius archeologist who rescues domestic violence victims” grafted on unnaturally, and it just doesn’t work. The characters come off as llamas wearing kangaroo masks or something. If you want a kangaroo heroine, fine, but do the actual work to make her a kangaroo. Otherwise, stick to llamas.
For me, this trend has been a masterclass in being careful what you wish for. I want to read about characters with psychological coherence, not Frankenstein’s trope monsters.
Oh Laura Kinsale for unconventional heroines… she did them in her own very special way, and each of them differs, each utterly herself, with all the difficulties that caused…
You made me think of her. A contrast: how to do outstandingly well what we miss in so many HRs today.
I love to reread Meredith Duran’s work for just this reason. They’re all exceptional women but they live within the limits of their worlds.
And that’s the thing – there WERE limits, no matter how much we wish there hadn’t been, and to ignore them makes a mockery of the genre. Also, and I’ve said this elsewhere about a different subject, but it applies here – in fifty years time, when people look back at the stories of today (IF they do), they will scratch their heads and wonder, if all these 19th C women had so much independence, what was the suffragette movement actually FOR? They could already do what they liked, shag who they liked, they could own property and live with a man without marriage, and run businesses etc. etc already, so what was all the fuss about?
I agree with you and Liselotte that truly great authors like Kinsale and Duran were able to write heroines who were independent of mind and courageous while operating with the limitations imposed upon them. And they are wonderful to read about, as we also marvel at the author’s ability to make them sympathetic and completely believable.
Imogen Robertson had a mystery series that I very much enjoyed. The books were set mostly in England in the late 18th C; the heroine was married to a naval captain who was off fighting the wars. She’s smart and capable but the series is quite realistic about how she has to operate within the social structures of her times. She has a bit more independence than most as the family has prize money from captured ships and her husband is mostly away so she does get to make decisions in his absence. Yet she is very aware of the limits of that independence, and I liked the series for that.
“Llamas wearing kangaroo masks”, what a perfect description!
And I agree, the vast majority of such heroines have their STEM-genius social-activist personas are attached without any depth or nuance. For instance, the heroine who saves battered wives… is she at all cynical about marriage because she’s seen how it can go wrong? The heroine who’s a brilliant biochemist… does she ever have to choose between accompanying the hero to a ball or working on her experiments?
You can always tell when the author made her heroine such a character to comply with the trend, rather than because these qualities were part of a well-thought-out, three-dimensional package.
I am reading one right now where the Victorian heroine is:
neurodivergent
brilliant enough to teach at Oxford if only they’d let her
successfully changing the English patriarchy and its laws
wildly well educated
super liberal about English colonialism
adorned with a pierced nipple
free of any racial biases
And I’m just 25% of the way in.
*gets out 10 foot pole*
Sounds like it belongs on my “No Way José” shelf at GR.
Pierced nipple. Now I’ve heard it all. And worse, I’ll never forget it.
Hilarious!
Did she do the piercing herself with a needle and a cork? ;)
It’s a shame she didn’t actually manage to sort out the bloody English patriarchy………..
I actually haven’t gotten to the how she got her boob nicked part yet. In the first scene of the book, she’s swimming naked in a loch and the hero stumbles upon her and she reflects that he’s seen her piercing.
Lol, he wouldn’t have seen it because of the goosebumps, then!
The whole scene is very odd.
And now one of the earlier heroines has had a threesome.
WTF?? (I have my suspicions as to which one…)
Yep. With her fiance and a handsome young man in Italy.
It appears that nipple (and genitalia) piercing was briefly fashionable amongst the Victorian rich – to show their wealth when unclothed and tie-in with popular erotica. It then moved, briefly, to the lower classes and stayed popular longer amongst sex workers. The rich had their piercings done at jewellers.
Yes, I looked that up. Again, it’s possible. But unlikely.