Darcy's Pemberley
Frances Morgan

 (10 April 2004)
  ISBN: 0954427815

         Written by Kathleen Glancy (October 5, 2004 )
I can't say I recommend this one. For one thing it is a sequel to Frances Morgan's last sequel, Darcy and Elizabeth, and will make no sense if you haven't read that. For another, it is fatally flawed by a total ignorance of law and history which leads to an impossible plot. (SPOILER)

The story revolves around someone who claims to be the firstborn but illegitimate son of Mr Darcy the elder, and demands that Pemberley should therefore be handed over to him. Now if anything like this actually happened in Jane Austen's world the conversation would run:

Claimant: I am your father's firstborn natural son. Resign Pemberley to me.

Darcy: I am my father's only legitimate son. Take yourself and your absurd pretensions out of my house.

Because a natural child had absolutely no right of inheritance unless specifically provided for in the father's will, which obviously this character couldn't have been. Darcy would know that - any educated person would. Good God, any uneducated person would. Yet Morgan has him actually ready to leave until Lady Catherine gives him a true history.

        Review by Linda Waldemar, 28 February 2005
Where do I start. There are so many things wrong this book! In the first chapter, I found myself saying: "She wouldn't say that!", "He wouldn't do that!". And I started to make note of those things.
1. Mrs Bennet insults Mr Darcy to his face.
2. Mr Darcy confides in Lady Catherine and asks her advice.
3. Mr Darcy warns Mr Bingley without any evidence; merely his feelings.
4. "Louise" Hurst confides in Elizabeth.
5. Elizabeth dances while heavy with child.
After a while, there were so many of these examples that I gave up noting them and tried to ignore them.

It does not appear that the author read Jane Austen's novel or she would not have gotten the spellings of so many of the names wrong; Bennett, Lizzie, Gardner, Huntsford, Longbourne, de Burgh,. And the relationships: she says that the elder Mr Darcy's brother was the guilty party in an incident. Soon after, Lady Catherine says that the elder Mr Darcy's brother is her brother! She names JA's Mr Darcy's father, Fitzwilliam Darcy; unlikely since the family name of his mother, Lady Anne, is Fitzwilliam. Mr Collins leaves "Huntsford" one evening and arrives at Pemberley the next afternoon!

Besides these inconsistencies, the book is riddled with errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. She also used a lot of strange, awkward phrases; perhaps in a failed attempt to imitate JA's style, or Regency language. And if that is not enough, the plot is as thin as the characters are not at all like JA's, the dialogue is repetitve and stilted; I lost count of the times that Jane tells Elizabeth that she is "unkind". Although our Lizzy can be judgmental and not always ready to believe the best in people, I cannot believe that she is mean-spirited. Jane Austen's Elizabeth Bennet would not take pleasure in the adversities of others, even those people of whom she is not fond.

This book is a sequel to Darcy and Elizabeth. Luckily, it is an easy, if not pleasant, read so it did not take long to get through it. Though, I must admit, I could not finish it soon enough. What is more, the ending smells of a sequel to this  :-(

I always hesitate to tell others to stay away from a sequel because we all have such differing tastes. I will say, however, that, IMHO, you buy this one at your own risk.

        Written by Linda (3/6/2005 7:04 p.m.)
Now, this is a sequel that, IMHO, is very, very bad! I wonder if the author even read Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice or just viewed P&P2. And if that is true, she must not have watched it many times, because she seemed to get it all wrong!

I think that the names and places should be spelled as JA spelled them; not Lizzie, Longbourne, Gardner, de Burgh, and more. Besides these, there are a multitude of grammatical, punctuation and spelling errors.

        Written by Kathleen Glancy (3/7/2005 6:50 p.m.) 
I do not think the author has read the book - her first sequel actually quotes dialogue from P&P2 verbatim. I think Andrew Davies or the BBC could sue (though so they could anyone who publishes a book mentioning The Shirt). What I liked least was a plot based on what I cannot describe as anything but total ignorance of the law of England - this is not just my opinion but an absolute fact. At the time illegitimate children had absolutely no rights of inheritance unless it was stipulated in the father's will. Darcy might have been emotionally upset if someone claiming to be his father's natural and firstborn son turned up, but he would not have worried for a second about losing Pemberley much less been ready to hand the estate over until saved by Lady Catherine's advice.

        Written by LynneRobson (3/12/2005 10:18 a.m.) 
I wrote a review of this book back in June of last year. I must say I did not dislike it as much as a couple of other sequels I have just read, but I must agree with Linda's review of this book. There were things in it that I just could not see happening like Mrs Bennet insulting Darcy. The claimant being able to take Pemberley from Darcy, for goodness sake he was not the legal son and not mentioned in the Elder Darcy's will so he had no claim on Pemberley what so ever. In the 1800's they had to be a legal sons eg son's which came from their marriage to inherit as many of the ton had illigal sons and daughters who were not recognised at all.

All in all it completed in many ways the book Elizabeth and Darcy and yes I also agree with Linda it does seem to say that their maybe another sequel to it coming our way sometime. To me it was a pleasant read, but you do need to read Elizabeth and Darcy to follow this book first.