Don't want you like a best friend

Mischief & Matchmaking #1

by Emma R. Alban, Sofia Dilaghi (Translator)

Un romance scritto con grazia e profonda arguzia, che racconta perfettamente tutto lo struggimento e la speranza che si provano quando ci si innamora per la prima volta. Una delizia assoluta.

1857. Beth è una debuttante e ha solo una stagione per accalappiare un marito facoltoso, o lei e sua madre finiranno sul lastrico. Ma interpretare la parte della timida ingenua non è proprio nelle sue corde e preferirebbe essere ovunque piuttosto che lì.

Gwen, invece, è al suo quarto anno e non ha alcuna intenzione di sposarsi. Anche perché è figlia unica di un conte tanto irascibile quanto ricco, dal quale ha ereditato il fascino e l'umorismo.

Le due si incontrano al primo ballo e l'intesa è immediata. Serata dopo serata, per ovviare alla noia delle vuote chiacchiere coi pretendenti, Gwen escogita un divertente perché non provare ad accasare suo padre con la madre di Beth? Dopotutto sono entrambi vedovi… C'è solo un piccolo i loro genitori sembrano odiarsi a vicenda. Eppure, quanto può essere difficile intrappolare due persone che un tempo si amavano?

Nel frattempo, un bel visconte si fa avanti per Beth e lei capisce di aver perso la testa sì, ma non per il suo potenziale fidanzato. Perché a volte capita di innamorarsi anche della propria migliore amica…

Genres: Romance, Lesbian, LGBT, Historical Fiction, Queer, Historical, Historical Romance

402 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 9, 2024

About the author

Raised in the Hudson Valley, Emma now lives in Los Angeles, enjoying the eternal sunshine, ocean, and mountains. When she isn't writing books or screenplays, she can usually be found stress baking with the AC on full blast, skiing late into the spring, singing showtunes at the top of her lungs on the freeway, and reading anywhere there’s somewhere to lean.

Reviews

[Tarryn · Rating 4 out of 5]

A queer Victorian romance with a blatant Taylor Swift reference?! *grabby hands* GIMME!


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Thanks to Edelweiss for giving me the opportunity to swoon over this book a little early!

Don't Want You Like a Best Friend made some impeccable choices. Sapphic romance? Check. Victorian setting? Check. Second chance romance with a Parent Trap twist? Check!

This book is everything I could have hoped for it to be and more. Achingly sweet and swoonworthingly romantic, with the biting wit I'm always hoping to find in my historical romances. Emma R. Alban has created characters to root for and care about. Not just with Beth and Gwen, but with the surrounding characters that quickly charmed me and warmed my heart. I was instantly invested in nearly everyone, and as a character driven reader, it really was a delight!

Low spice, low stress, big heart, HEA. Just a super fun reading experience, throughout.

P.S. Cordelia Demeroven has my whole heart.

Recommended Songs, iykyk ;)
-Enchanted
-I'm Only Me When I'm With You
-Love Story
-You All Over Me
-Dress
-Paper Rings
-Daylight
-Ivy
-Treacherous
-Everything Has Changed
-Maroon
-This Love

[chan ☆ · Rating 2 out of 5]

what a bummer! was really excited for this one but it was... lackluster

doesn't help that i recently read one of my favorite FF romances of all time. but even without that comparison, this one was just a let down. the main issue is the relationship development. i get that the girls were trying to get their parents together so that they themselves could get together but sooooo much time was spent on the parent's relationship. the girls had a couple hangouts and then one of em was like SMOOCH and then it was like "oh my god i love you"

and then stuff tears them apart for a pretty large portion of the book? it just frankly didn't feel like a romance! and the surrounding plot wasn't enough to carry the book. i am sad.

[Maditales · Rating 2 out of 5]

The way this book was amazing to me and then the ending thing happened and like I know it’s not “that bad” but I just really don’t like that trope EVER. Even when it only appears in the end

[addison · Rating 1 out of 5]

don’t want you like a best friend… i want you like a step sister?

[Hannah B. · Rating 5 out of 5]

✨Our secret moments in a crowded room. They got no idea about me and you.✨



AHHHH (ah, ha, ha, ha) this book was The Parent Trap x Historical Romance love child I never knew I need in my life!! I actually need like ten more Parent Trap-esque romances because the concept is just so dramatic and fun. Two relationships for the price of one (and there’s a bonus relationship plus another teaser)…so really FOUR relationships and I love and adore them all.



Gwen and Beth were lovely, a bit messy, and majorly obsessed with each other (which made me obsessed with them. While the title is Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend, I really enjoyed the friends to lovers aspect of their relationship. We saw their relationship/start on the page (not in the past) so I really connected to them both and how perfectly suited for each other they were. I’m also obsessed with their Hot™️ parents and could use a novella of their romance alone (I just know their bedroom chemistry was insane)!



My only major issue has nothing at all to do with the characters or the plot—both of which were perfection—but instead everything to do with how the book was written. I’m a major hater of third person present tense as it feels clunky, unnatural, and way too removed from the characters. It always feels like events and emotions are being told not shown. I basically spent the whole book mentally switching every other word to past
tense. It worked better than I’d have thought possible, but I really wish it wouldn’t have been written in that style.



A minor issue I had was just some of the drama in the second half considering Beth was engaged for a good chunk of it…but it did hurt so good and I can’t really complain. Gwen (and her father) were both a mess in the way that I just love to see…I was just also a mess. It did make the grovel and reconciliation at the end all the sweeter though.



To sum it up, I don’t know if I should go watch The Parent Trap or listen to Taylor Swift to cure my book hangover. Seriously, what do I read next?? Seeing as this was such a sparkling debut, I absolutely cannot wait for book two. The teaser we got in the epilogue was delicious and just what I was hoping for!



In conclusion, taking off dresses hits different when there are unlaced corsets and translucent chemises involved <3



⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️.5/5 🌶️🌶️*/5



*There was one major scene plus a little extra here and there. Moderate level of detail was given and it was open door.




Thanks so much to the publisher for an eARC via NetGalley. All opinions are honest and my own.

[zara · Rating 1 out of 5]

look. i was about to give this 2 stars because the romance is a hot mess of nothing no chemistry no pining no yearning and jumping from point A to point H in one page. but the fact that their parents got married and they're so enthusiastic about fucking after they became stepsisters is way too weird for me to not just give this a flat one star

[Riley · Rating 4 out of 5]

kicking screaming crying throwing up !!!!!!
this was EVERYTHING I wanted from a sapphic historical romance

[ellen · Rating 2 out of 5]

so sad about this one🥲

[Sylvie {Semi-Hiatus} · Rating 4 out of 5]

Sapphic Victorian novel meets Bridgerton/Parent Trap and the TS song reference in the title?
I NEED THIS BOOK MORE THAN ANYTHING!

[Brend · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you... only buy that dress so she could take it off?
Is it... cool that she said all that? Is it chill that you’re in her head?
Cause she knows that it’s delicate...

[charlotte, · Rating 1 out of 5]

On my blog.

Galley provided by publisher

Call me a snob if you will but I think, if I’m reading a historical romance, the one thing I want it to do above all else is, well, feel historical. If I wanted a contemporary romance I would pick up just that. Alas, this was where this book hit a serious snag. This didn’t feel like a Regency(ish) historical romance; this felt like an American contemporary romance in funny clothing.

(An aside here to say, of course, your mileage may vary on this. My mileage was pretty damn short.)

I grant, first, that it was an inauspicious start to the book when I realised it’s in present tense. In and of itself, not necessarily a bad thing, but I do feel that present tense is more difficult to get right than past tense somehow. Or maybe, put it this way, it’s more obvious when it’s wrong for the book. I read two books after this one in present tense and I didn’t feel in any way as annoyed by it there as I did here. It was, very likely, a combination of the writing, the modern feel and the present tense, all of them compounding one another to produce this. A one-star review.

Now there were other aspects that I disliked too, although I’m not sure how much of an impact they’d have had alone without the whole thing of it feeling like I’m reading a contemporary romance (in what world, for instance, would you expect someone in the Regency to use “pissy” in the sense of annoyed? And did you know that the verb “party” didn’t come to mean “having a good time” until the early 20th century? Well now you do!). Probably I’d have simply ended up bored rather than quite as pissed off as I came to be.

These issues were namely the pacing, the characterisation, and the sheer lack of pining for a book that purports to be “friends to lovers”. I mean, sure it is, in the most basic sense of the trope! They become friends and then they become lovers!

But anyway, back to the pacing. Let’s start there. I actually don’t have a whole lot concrete to say about this one, but in my notes I wrote “what the hell kind of pacing is this” so something must have gone wrong somewhere. Joking aside, I think, for me, they got together too early (44%), so the rest of the book was more a case of how can they be together rather than will they get together. From a personal perspective alone, I prefer the latter to the former.

It probably didn’t help that the characterisation was so incredibly bland, it’s hard to overstate it. Nothing about any of the characters stood out in the slightest. I can just about remember their names (Gwen and Beth!), but if you asked me anything beyond that? Well. Gwen is non-conformist? She doesn’t want to marry? She and her father gallivant around getting drunk at one point— oh and look we’re back to my issue of modernity in a historical romance. Rather, in this particular historical romance, because I’m sure there were people who did have what we might consider as more modern sensibilities, but they didn’t sound as anachronistic as this. Beth, on the other hand, was the prototypical “not pretty”, obedient, and willing to marry for money to save her family. Side characters, too, fell into stereotypes such that not one of the cast could I describe as memorable.

Because they were bland, so was their romance. I didn’t feel anything about their friendship, let alone its development into a romance. And then there was the lack of pining. Maybe this is prescriptive of me, but I prefer when there’s a longer period of friendship and plenty of pining, like how can they get together would it ruin their friendship kind of pining. There’s very little tension between them, very little sense of their actually having a relationship really. Not least because you just keep getting told everything they were feeling.

And then came the real travesty: the “cricket” match. I don’t know what sport they were playing but it was not cricket. I’m trying to think of a sport I know jackshit about to make a comparison here, so let’s choose golf. I know nothing about golf. I even did a presentation at university that was (by force) about golf and none of it stuck (thank god). So, let’s just say I wrote something and I put a scene featuring golf in it and I entirely bastardised the description of the sport. Such that it was no longer remotely recognisable as being golf. That was what this cricket scene was. Like I don’t mean to overly push the point here, but imagine something you know so much about gets chewed up and mangled by an author who knows nothing about it. Wouldn’t you be pissed off? And not least because a. cricket has genuinely not changed that much since the late 18th century so cricket as I know it now is basically cricket as it was then (and guess what! Entirely googleable!), and b. because this has gone through a round of edits in the UK as well. Where, you know, cricket is a bit bigger than in the USA. (Admittedly, you can still have no idea of what cricket involves, but why wouldn’t you check?) The cricket scene therefore was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

But then, given that the entire book seemed to have taken its worldbuilding from “research” consisting of just reading other historical romances, perhaps I shouldn’t have been too surprised.

[Drache.... (Angelika) · Rating 2 out of 5]

2,25 stars.
My review is going to have two parts.

PART 1 - complaints in terms of historical romance.
I might be biased by my favorite (mf) hr authors Mimi Mathews, Mary Balogh, Anne Gracie, Kate Harper or Martha Keyes, but the writing style in this book is totally different from those authors' books, and very much modern. The whole feeling of the book is that of a contemporary romance. The story takes place in 1857 says the first chapter. But the author uses many words/terms usually not used in hr. "Yeah" for example, Merriam-Webster says it's first been used in 1863, other sites say it's been used from 1905 on and originated in American English. According to Merriam-Webster, "chummy" was first used in 1884, "lifestyle" was first used in 1915, "gelato" was first used in 1929, and so on.
The girls drink constantly wine, champagne, brandy, scotch and whiskey at the balls and other formal occasions, but in hr I never encountered that, weren't girls just allowed to drink ratafia and forbidden to drink anything stronger? Then there was a scene where their widowed parents were feeding each other oysters in a restaurant? In 1857? Everything felt so very casual and pulled out of the historical context.
BUT since the blurb explicitely says "A swoon-worthy debut queer Victorian romance (...) the lesbian Bridgerton/Parent Trap you never knew you needed!" I guess maybe the author deliberately chose to write a contemporary romance set in 1857 for readers who haven't a full library of historical romances to compare this book to? And didn't just too little research? I would have loved a heads-up or note at the beginning of the book to clarify it, though (then I would have been able to stay in the story).

PART 2 (the storyline, very mild spoilers)
The first 60% of the story were sweet and it was lovely to watch the two MCs Beth and Gwen falling in love.
Although I understood where Beth was coming from emotionally, I felt really bad for how long she accepted Lord Montson's courtship, because he was a nice person and didn't deserve her lies.

When the sort-of third act break up at 60% occured, I didn't understand why the girls suddenly didn't think anymore of their initial plan for Beth and her mother to be safe without Beth having to marry? The possibility of Gwen's father marrying Beth's mother had been for the first 50% of the book the main goal for the girls, getting their parents to fall in love. Suddenly between page 220 and 285 they forgot all about that? Gwen's father getting drunk with Gwen at a ball (Gwen vomiting afterwards from the carriage's door) and both getting drunk together a few days later at a horse race (Gwen vomiting afterwards at home on the stairs) was a very strange and cringey choice, too, during those 65 pages.
But yeah, fast forward 65 pages of pining and suffering and sadness for all 4 of them and drinking for 2 of them, suddenly the girls remember what had always been their goal!! Make it make sense please (beside the obvious need to lengthen the book) *insert eye roll*.
The end of the book was drama, drama, drama. Disappointing.

Tldr: contemporary YA FF romance disguised as historical romance. Sweet falling in love first half, OTT dramatic will-they-won't they second half of the book.

I'm not anymore curious about the second installment (although the epilogue tried very hard to set the scene for it).

[Han · Rating 2 out of 5]

The potential of what this could have been hurtssss.

To keep this short and simple. The vibes were vibing, but I was more invested in the parents than the main couple. The insta-love was too strong with this one.

Always lovely to buddy read with bestie, lila! 💕
______________________________________

Sapphic Bridgerton meets Parent Trap?? GIMME GIMME!

br with my bb, lila 💕

[lexie · Rating 4 out of 5]

NO ONE YEARNS LIKE LESBIANS YEARN!!!!!!

[K.J. Charles]

A frothy and entirely ahistorical histrom. Present tense, and dialogue is extremely modern American English. You mind this or you don't.

Chacun a son gout. If these things don't bother you, it's got lots of froth and romp and a parent-trap plotline that looked fun; I just didn't get on with it as I was hoping to, which I regret. Hey ho, not everything is for me.

I do need to comment on the absolutely bewildering names: Mrs Demeroven? Lord Psoris? Lord Frightan? Mrs Stelm? Lord Bletchle? I suppose it's in the Victorian authorial tradition of filling books with weird-ass names as per Trollope and Thackeray; I found it distracting, but there you go.

[gloria .☆ﾟ.]

i saw the cover and screamed (emailing the publisher has never worked but here i am again)

[angeline · Rating 2 out of 5]

When I read the title for this story, I assumed the author meant that our two main leads, Miss Beth Demeroven and Lady Gwen Havenfort, would eventually become lovers—that this book would be your classic, sweet best friends-to-lovers romance.

I was wrong. Well, kind of. They did become lovers—but in the process of that, they also became step-sisters.

Look, the book's official description doesn't try to hide it that the two girls go on a mission to get their parents together, however, knowing that this was a romance revolving those two girls, I didn't think that the parents would actually get married in the end. I assumed the author would have this sort of innocent 'twist' and the girls would eventually realize that their parents weren't a pair of failed lovers that they assumed they were, that there was something else that had caused their mutual hatred. But, well, I was mistaken.

The book started very lovely. I really liked the girls and their dynamic, and I was actually really, really rooting for them. I was very excited to find out how things would turn out for them... until I wasn't. Because the author didn't allow me to get excited over their tension; she had them kiss, sleep together, and admit their feelings for each other not even 50% in.

I cannot stress enough how much I hate it when a romance book—especially when it's a queer romance—is not a slowburn. Go, girl, give us nothing!

And then they became step-sisters... that was the cherry on top. Why would the author think this would be a good idea? Beyond me. Overall, this book was wasted potential. Hopefully the follow up, You're the Problem, It's You, will be better.

[Elizabeth (Plant Based Bride) · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was so pleasantly surprised by Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend, the first book in this historical romance duology. We focus on Gwen and Beth, two vibrant and endearing characters whose slow realization of their mutual attraction was a joy to watch unfold! Their romance was tender, wholesome, and beautifully written within a historically world that, while not entirely realistic, offered a safe and supportive environment for queer relationships in private (if requiring discretion in public). Nearly every character who learns about Gwen and Beth’s love is supportive, creating a lovely, accepting atmosphere.

The only thing holding me back from giving it a full five stars was the third-act miscommunication and conflict. This section involved some substance abuse and unnecessary meanness that felt a bit too intense and drawn out. Despite this, the book was charming and immersive - a sweet, romantic tale that would be enjoyable for fans of historical sapphic romance. I highly recommend it!


Trigger/Content Warnings: verbal abuse, domestic abuse, alcoholism, loss of parents, misogyny


You can find me on...

Youtube | Instagram | TikTok

You can join our book club over on Patreon...

PBB Book Club

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

A friends to lovers sapphic historical!? Yes please. I was loving this when it started, watching Gwen and Beth meet and love hanging out at balls together. They quickly realize their parents had a past and they team up to get them together. They realize they're having feelings for each other, but Emma really needs to marry in order for her family to be taken care of. I thought their connection was so cute, but the parent storyline did overshadow their romance at times. By the second half, I was losing interest in the plot and romance and didn't have that giddy feeling over them that I had in the beginning. Overall it was still a really cute romance, it just lost some steam by the end.

[Maeghan &#x1f98b; · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was absolutely lovely. It’s in the same Victorian world as the Bridgerton - and it’s queer! Absolutely stunning.

Beth & Gwen were so adorable 🥺 I wanted to read more of them! The parent trap element was also really interesting.

I had Taylor Swift’s Dress song stuck in my head the whole read 🤭

I would recommend this to anyone wanting to read a lighthearted Victorian romance. It’s predictable - so if you’re not in the mood to rack your brains out - this is for you!

Thank you to my wonderful @Stephanie for this rec ❤️‍🔥 this was such a wholesome read 🥺

[⋆.˚ livia .☘︎ ݁˖ · Rating 1 out of 5]

forever mourning all the potential this had.

entirely missing chemistry, yearning, and actual relationship development as well as character development. the character work also really felt lacking to me; where gwen was somewhat more well-rounded, beth was lacking personality and well-written characterization.

& call me a discourse brat all you want but i’m not a big fan of the “cottagecore fem” phenomenon in sapphic romances where the main relationship is fem4fem and both characters view their lesbianism as “soft” and “pure” outside of and apart from male attention and intimacy in a way that isn’t inherently tied to gender or sexuality but in a way that hinges entirely upon the belief that lesbian relationships are free from amorous holdings through the virtue of both people being of the same relative gender.

a relationship is still a relationship, sex is still sex, desire is still desire, and the steamiest part of this book was the fight scene between secondary male characters.

[Nitesky · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars
I actually enjoyed the first half of this book, I think it was cute and endearing. However, I didn’t really care for the second half. That is because I think Gwen and Beth’s relationship was very rushed and underdeveloped: the pining and developing-feelings part felt very quick to me, thus making me feel like they had no chemistry for the rest of the book.

Honestly, I was also weirded out by the fact that Gwen and Beth eventually become step-sisters (with a shared sibling on the way), was there no other way for them to end up together? That’s what also ruined everything for me, to be honest.

As I already mentioned, I had little interest for the second half of this book—whenever the protagonists had cute scenes I felt nothing due to the lack of chemistry between them. I also found myself preferring the side characters because Beth and Gwen didn’t behave like 20-year-olds in my opinion.

I don’t know, I wish I had liked this book more but it was flawed and it also dragged in the middle.

[river ♥ · Rating 5 out of 5]

i need this book so bad i can’t explain it. i mean friends-to-lovers sapphic victorian meets bridgerton & parent trap with a taylor swift lyric title plus that gorgeous cover?? i am not that strong!! praying to the netgalley gods rn!!

I'M SO SILLY I DIDN'T NOTICE THIS SWITCHED TO READ NOW OH MY GOD SO EXCITED

[liv ❁ · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don’t Want You Like a Best Friend is a sapphic regency romance where our two main characters, Beth and Gwen, hatch up a plan to set their parents up so they can have a second chance at happiness and end up falling in love in the process. This was an absolute joy to read. The relationship between Beth and Gwen felt so real and raw and was scattered with very real issues that came with being a lesbian who needed to marry in regency England. The relationship between the parents was also well fleshed out and beautifully done, I felt so bad for Beth’s mom and was immediately charmed by Gwen’s dad. While we mainly follow Beth and Gwen as they meddle and develop feelings, we also see some incredible developments from side characters. The parental relationships both girls have are so important to the story and so wonderful to see, the cousins add some hilarious banter, and the maids are a heartwarming surprise. This book delivered so well and was everything I could’ve hoped for. It had me kicking my feet like a fool. If you’re looking for a cute, sapphic regency romance I recommend checking this out!

The only real critique I have is that it got a bit repetitive and lulled a little in the middle. Nonetheless, this was an incredibly enjoyable read and I cannot wait to see these characters again in the sequel!

Thank you netgalley for the e-arc <3

[Anna · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am beyond disappointed by this book. I am the target demographic, a big lover of lesbianism, shenanigans and history and yet the more I read, the more I disliked it.

My problem with this book was twofold. The pacing was off and the world building was shoddy. Usually I am not one of those blow hard history fans that turn feral at the slightest historical inaccuracy, but because of the odd pacing of the story, I kept noticing it more and more.

The book started out well enough with the introduction of the heroines to the readers and to each other and an entire London season ahead of them full of decadent rich people activities.
What it ended up being was just Gwen and Beth being at parties and talking, sometimes they talked at the theater, sometimes the talked at sporting events, it really did not matter, those scenes had no plot relevance to the story. They just talked. Sometimes happy more often than not unnecessarily angsty talk.

Furthermore Gwen is introduced as the wild child of the ton, yet the worst things she engages in is too much drinking and an ill conceived croquet match .
The stakes did not exactly line up either. It has been marketed as a Victorian "Parent Trap". However they for no reason whatsoever give up on this plot point at the 50% mark and instead of taking any actions to better their situation they engage in gratuitous whining. This goes on for way to long and led me to skim a good chunk of the second half. I do not know why the editor did not step up here and cut this part down. Some people might enjoy passive heroines, I do not.
The resolution to the big conflict is in fact them REMEMBERING their original plan.

You can see I had my issues with the plot and as it was not engaging enough, I started noticing random things like the language. I clearly remember sitting up while reading this and thinking:

"Is the author British? She can't be British."

As a German Native speaker this is asinine thing for me to notice. Not only was the vocabulary of the characters not period appropriate (which I can deal with to a degree), it was also peppered with Americanisms.
So the voice was not what it should be for a Period Piece set in Britain. Which led me to question why it was not set in the US in the first place. That I could answer quickly. A country that employs Slavery is probably not the best back drop for a fluffy romance.
But you see, 1850s London isn't "fluffy" either. By that time London was the epicenter of a bloody and unjust Colonial power. London was also rife with class conflict, as the Industrial Revolution had changed the working conditions of thousands for the worse.
Those issues are never brought up, despite Gwen's father being a politician and his political activities being a big plot point. When politics are discussed it is only referring to one specific law, that Gwen's father is trying to pass. Nothing else.
The feminism in this book also does not go beyond the average hetero historical romance feminism. You know the one? Where wealthy, white women bemoan being treated as chattel without a shade of nuance. and yes they do use the word chattel, which is a bit full on, when there is actual chattels slavery happening at the same time
It stinks, even more so because the heroines could have engaged with actual real world feminist discourse that had been published by 1857 and given the thing more depth.

London as a city is also not explored AT ALL. At one point Gwen refers to her mansion as one of the first ones that was built ON THE SQUARE. On the square! Which one? Which part of London? Did London just have one square in 1857? I have not been there in a while, but I do not remember a place just called "the square".
The heroines also long for the unspecified country side. You know the country side that England has. Not Yorkshire, not Kent, not Norfolk, or Suffolk, just ... the country.

A plethora of reviews here even get the time period of the book wrong. People have walked away from this Victorian romance and were convinced they read a Regency one. That should tell you everything you need to know. And this is no fault of the reviewer but of the author (and the editor). What is on show here is a blatant ignorance and disrespect for history in general and British and Women's history specifically. I read historical fiction because I love history, I am not sure the author does.

This clearly pushed some buttons with me, thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

[amarachireads · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a super cute read, I enjoyed it so much. I loved both characters, the romance and the parent trap plot. It was so cute seeing the main characters go from friends to lovers and then navigating that in the historical times. I can’t wait for the next book in the series because the characters and plot looks so interesting.

Read this if you like:
- Queer Awakening
- Parent trapping
- Sapphic love
- Historical romance
- First love

[Star · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thank you to the ARC deities for me being able to have an advanced copy of this to read and love.

Full review to come but Dress by Taylor Swift is a MUST have in your mind and life when reading this book (before, after, etc) as it is a literal match made in heaven.

Gwen and Beth were so lovely. I just *smushes face to kindle* I loved this a lot.


First read: 03-05/08/2023
Second read: 18-19/08/2024

[Renaissance Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

"The lesbian Bridgerton/Parent Trap you never knew you needed!"

We need more F/F Historicals 😍.

[ayah ♡ · Rating 2 out of 5]

they’re step siblings and this was written by a gaylor and that’s literally all you need to know

[Mariah · Rating 3 out of 5]

this was cute but i got more invested in the parents’ romance than the two mcs