top of page

Book Review: Undeniable Rogue

Updated: Dec 1, 2022

Ahhh Regency Romance. One of my not-so-guilty pleasures. I’m not as much of a stickler as some Regency Fans, I don’t have to have them be clean or set during the London Season.

Which is good. Because Undeniable Rogue is not your standard Regency Romance.

On the eve of the battle, Gideon St. Goddard, Duke of Stanthorpe, vowed to take care of a fallen comrade’s loved ones. What his friend didn’t tell him was that Sabrina Whitcomb was a widow, with twin boys and another child on the way. His friend also neglected to tell him that she was in trouble and that was why she needed Gideon’s protection.

Sabrina Whitcomb is a woman with a past. The kind of past which can still haunt her. She knows she needs to provide for her family, keep them safe, and if marrying what she thinks is an elderly rake will do that, she’ll make that sacrifice. Sabrina didn’t expect her new husband to be so alluring. Too bad the ghosts she’d thought she’d left behind have come back to haunt her.

I’m not sure what I was expecting when I went into this, but a romantic comedy featuring a piddling puppy, precocious twin terrors, and a pregnant heroine was not it.

And I was delighted! Sabrina is the one with a troubled past which makes up the core of the conflict, both in how it affects her and her children and also how the specters rise up to terrorize her and her new family again. Gideon is delightfully uncomplicated. But that doesn’t mean he’s not a good character, he is. But in a world filled with brooding heroes it is nice to have one who isn’t.

I saw one twist coming, but to be fair you’re supposed to. But if you want to remain completely unspoiled, don’t check out the summary on Amazon. What I didn’t expect was how the trope was played with. It was fun.

I particularly enjoyed the parts where they grew together as a family. It’s more fluffy than I was expecting.

My one complaint was that the formatting was uneven. Chapter 18 was not set off correctly, and several scene/pov breaks were missing. In addition, there were at least two instances of wrong words -- used “baited” instead of “bated” and “till” for “‘til” -- and there was one instance where the quotation marks were missing. All of these stood out to my editor’s eye, but they weren’t numerous enough to have me knock it down a star… One more egregious error would have. This is why we have our review system.

Recent Posts

See All
bottom of page