Wednesday, 3 February 2016

If You Like... Vintage and Historical

The If You Like... series helps you find the kinds of Romance you want to read by grouping together Candy Hearts Romances that share themes.

Today in the If You Like... series, we look at Vintage and Historical Romance

Like to step out of time? Harken back to yesteryear? These Candy Hearts Romances will take you back to the past.

Candy Hearts Romances are available from The Wild Rose PressAmazonKoboBooks, or wherever all good ebooks are sold.
(vintage-1980's) For Keeps by Veronica Lynch
rating: sensual (PG-13)
Meghan Muldoon is at a crossroads: struggling to balance the demands of a high stress vocation as an advocate for victims of violence and her feelings for Keenan Rossi, a man who wants to make their relationship permanent.
On Valentine's Day, a series of routine crises force Meg to question staying in a profession which fulfills her both professionally and spiritually--or devoting the rest of her life to the one person who completes her.
Which one is For Keeps?

(vintage-1960's) Only Yours by Nancy Fraser 
rating: sweet (PG)
Everyone expects Rebecca Winston to marry her high school/college sweetheart, Garrett Langley. The problem is, the flame’s gone out on their romance. They’re still best of friends, but only friends. When Garrett’s father has a heart attack, his older brother Wyatt (an L.A. attorney) returns home for the first time in years. The attraction between Rebecca and Wyatt is immediate.
Can Rebecca expect her family and, especially, Garrett to understand that her desires have changed and turned toward Wyatt?
Can Wyatt get past the feeling that he’s poaching his younger brother’s girl?

(historical-1940's, WWII) Not2Nite by Barbara Burke
rating: sweet (PG)
When ARP warden Molly sees a light shining through the darkness of London on a cold winter's night in the middle of the blitz she's infuriated with the careless American who struck it. Doesn't he know there's a war on?
Guy's just trying to find his way through a maze of unlit streets. He's very sorry and Molly reluctantly forgives him. When he accompanies her on her nightly rounds the two learn about each other, themselves and whether it's really possible to fall in love in only one night - especially when there's no guarantee of tomorrow.

(historical-1905, Golden Era) Marry Me by Heidi Kneale
rating: sweet (PG)
In 1905 New York City, affluent Millie Moore wants to be outspoken like the suffragettes she admires. She also wants to rid herself of an annoying and controlling suitor. For a well-brought up young lady whose mother fears her impending spinsterhood, speaking her mind is an uphill battle.
When Raymond Wilson sees Millie at a rally, it’s love at first sight. Not wanting his stutter to ruin his chances, he enchants a little candy heart to do his talking for him.
For Millie, Raymond is a breath of fresh air. And maybe, just maybe, someone she could love. But for her social-climbing suitor Guy Elliot, he’s a threat to his plans. And Raymond isn’t the only one who knows something about magic. Now the ante has been upped and Millie is the prize…

(historical-RegencyRomance) For You by Emma Kaye 
rating: sensual (PG-13)
It's Valentine's Day, and candy heart sayings mock Drew Engledown's lonely state. He wants more in his life than work, but hasn't met anyone he can imagine spending his life with. When he puts his own life at risk to save a friend, he's sent back in time to Regency London and mistaken for a murdered earl. Has he been given a chance at love with the earl's beautiful widow, or will he suffer the same fate as the previous lord?
When her husband's heir lays claim to all she once owned, Lady Engledown is left nearly destitute. So she doesn't know whether to be relieved or angry when the earl returns but claims he's not her husband. Could he be telling the truth, or is he toying with her? She doesn't know what to think of this man who is so different from the husband she never loved. Can they find happiness together, or will this man she comes to love leave her worse off than before?

No comments: