[ SECRET POST #2972 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2972 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 072 secrets from Secret Submission Post #425.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Historical Fiction That Doesn't Emphasize Romance (or Blood and Gore)

[(Anonymous)]

I know what you mean. I love historical fiction but most historical romance isn't very historical. I like:

Sharon Kay Penman: medieval English/Welsh history
Margaret George: Tudor history, plus Cleopatra and Helen of Troy
Elizabeth Gedge: older and maybe harder to find, but ancient Egypt
Elizabeth Chadwick's newer books: contains some romance but less than her early works and she explores more obscure eras/historical figures and the politics without getting too dry
Bernard Cornwall is also worth a look, mostly English history with some King Arthur



An anti-rec: Philippa Gregory is truly mediocre at best.