
I like it. The two lead characters weren't mere cliches, but had some real substance to them. Life had dealt a lot of blows to Angie, but she wasn't the poor me/moping type of "heroine," and was going at life as if to conquer her past. She was also a very generous person (which, forgive the sexism, often makes a woman more vulnerable than a man). Vittorio, while being a bit hung up on his pride, was much better than most Harlequin "Italian Leads." (I do get awfully tired of ethnic stereotypes!) He wasn't a walking hormone, and was pretty much of a gentleman. The plot of the story didn't have unbelievably contrived dramatic situation between the main leads that so many Harlequin's have. Even without contrived angst, the reader can feel for both characters. It was a good read.

I liked it quite a bit. The characters were interesting and believable. At first, I was totally put off by the ML, but his mental trauma was from a believable cause, and not the "boo hoo, my pride has been shattered," normal cause of angst in double y chromosome Harlequin guys. The little girl's original attitude is also understandable. The adults she had in her life were: a mother who ignored her while trying to have sex with every male in Great Britain, and a neurotic, suicidal father who ignored her because he didn't think she was his real daughter. Sorry to be so hard on the "victim" father, but if he had been any weaker of character, the Jello company would sue for patent infringement. Celente was lucky she had the maximum load of moxie she did, otherwise she would probably have spent most of her life either as a total shut-in or seeing a therapist twice a week. And she was expected to shed tears for the death of these two poor excuses for humans? Anyway, Rebel was a breath of fresh air in a milieu dominated by regret and grudges, where the only "outsiders" were a female snake feeding said grudges, and a couple of stock Wodehouse upper crust characters (the type whose greatest display of emotion was to break into some mild tut-tuttery during the London Blitz).

He started off with the "I'm so irresistible and you know you want me" trope, but he seemed to chill out a bit as time went on. The thing that got me was the big baby tantrum he threw at the end of her stay. Rips the dress and roars off in a cloud of dust. Next, I expected him to get on twitter and then impose sanctions on her.
Here we have an unknown lady who steals (more like recovers) stolen jewelry from thieves and returns it to the rightful owners. Then we have this "high class" policeman who has dedicated his professional life to catching her and having her executed. He shoots her without being sure that she is the "criminal." I must have really misread English history if the 1870's were so crime free that upper echelon police officers spent all their time chasing after someone returning stolen property. Can we say that this premise is as dumb as it can get? At least that's my take on the matter.
I wonder if peoples back then were as stupid as we are nowadays. Nowadays you can really be arrested to "steal" something that was stolen and return to his original owned.
This is based on another famous female thief and is quite the common story. I’m pretty sure it loosely based on a real story that actually happen, but I’m not 100% what the name is or if I’m remembering that correctly. But here is another story based on similar events. http://www.mangago.zone/read-manga/kamikaze_kaitou_jeanne/
I think the police who searched someone who's breaking houses and stealing thongs. I don't think that the stolen properties was proved to be stolen. That might be because the jewels as stolen by higher nobles from commoners or lower nobles that they can't do anything about it
Damn! I missed the whole premise of the story. I didn't realize that she was actually an underwear thief, stealing revealing panties! Still, that's no reason to shoot her.