Review: Bewitching the Forbidden Duke

Bewitching the Forbidden Duke by Scarlett Osborne
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

DNF at 61% (chapter entitled "A Series of Misunderstandings")

I really hate to be so hard on a book, but in the spirit of honesty, if I could rate Scarlett Osborne's "Bewitching the Forbidden Duke" zero stars, I would. I found this book to be poorly researched, written, and edited, with unlikable, unintelligent characters and a mostly nonsensical plot. Even the book's title doesn't really make sense; the male main character, Patrick, is the son of a duke and uses the courtesy title of marquess, but is not a duke himself. (To be fair, perhaps he inherits the title at some point after I stopped reading, but even so, he definitely was not a duke for more than half the book, so I think they could have come up with a better title.)

My biggest problem with this book was that I did not like the main characters, Melissa and Patrick. Melissa came across as immature and unintelligent, while Patrick seemed pretty spineless as he mindlessly obeyed his father's orders, almost without question, and turned a blind eye to the rumors about his father's unsavory business dealings. Melissa and Patrick's relationship development was basically nonexistent, and I had a difficult time figuring out why they wanted to be together so badly. It seemed like a case of "insta-love" on Patrick's part coupled with Melissa's determination to pursue Patrick as revenge on her mother and sister, Rose, because her mother blatantly favored Rose, and Rose wanted Patrick.

Aside from the awful main characters, there were a lot of things about the plot that didn't make sense to me. For example, after they decided to elope, Melissa and Patrick spent an entire afternoon together unchaperoned in Hyde Park, and were seen by several members of the ton. They were incredibly indiscreet, with Patrick even dragging Melissa off the path to make out with her in the trees, which should have resulted in Melissa's total ruination in the eyes of Society. However, the next morning, Melissa has a change of heart and sends Patrick a note, telling him that since his engagement to Rose was never "publicly revoked," he can just go back to being engaged to Rose. I don't think it would have been that easy given their shenanigans in the park the day before! (Also, I don't think Patrick's engagement to Rose was ever officially announced, just discussed between the families, so there wasn't anything for him to "publicly" go back to. But that's beside the point.)

Further, it made no sense for Melissa to freak out about Patrick's father's planned hunt, and for that to be the reason she questioned whether Patrick was lying to her about breaking his engagement to Rose. She obviously didn't understand how an elopement was supposed to work since her lady's maid, Brynn, had to explain to her repeatedly that Melissa couldn't tell anyone about what she and Patrick were planning. Given the need for secrecy, why did Melissa think Patrick would tell his father about their planned elopement, when he would have tried to stop them from carrying out their plans? It makes total sense to me why Patrick would have wanted his father to believe that he still planned to marry Rose, and if Melissa wasn't so dumb, she would have realized that too.

Finally, there were a number of historical details in this book that the author just plain got wrong. For example, I don't think unmarried young ladies would have been permitted to correspond with gentlemen, other than close relatives, without their parents' permission. At first, before Rose's "engagement" to Patrick, Melissa and Brynn act like it's no big deal for Melissa to write to Patrick, but I'm pretty sure it would have been a huge breach of propriety. Similarly, it would have been a breach of propriety for Melissa to attend an overnight party unchaperoned. Her lady's maid would not have been considered a suitable chaperone since she wouldn't have been welcome to participate in the festivities.

In addition, the author didn't seem to be using titles correctly for the ducal characters or their offspring. For example, she referred to both Rose and Melissa as "Lady Greyfield" on several occasions, which is incorrect. Their father's title was the Duke of Greyfield, but their last (family) name was Alford. As his daughters, their full names would have been Lady Rose Alford and Lady Melissa Alford, and they would have been addressed as Lady Rose and Lady Melissa. Further, the author repeatedly referred to their mother as "Lady Greyfield," which is also incorrect. She might have been addressed as "Her Grace" or "Duchess," but never as "Lady Greyfield."

I almost never DNF books, but I have now done so twice in the past few months, and both of them were published by Cobalt Fairy. I don't think it's a coincidence.

*ARC provided by the author/publisher via BookFunnel. All opinions expressed are my own.

View all my reviews