One of the subjects I researched for February’s release, Lady Beast’s Bridegroom, was Regency attitudes to beauty. Remember all those sayings of our mothers and our mothers mothers? You can’t judge a book by its cover. Handsome is as handsome does. Beauty is only skin deep. True beauty is in the soul.

The thing is, most people believed the opposite in the Regency whatever they said. And I don’t know if things are any better today.

Here’s part of the Author’s note I wrote for the book.

Even in today’s more diverse culture, physical appearance makes a huge difference in people’s lives. Being heavily overweight, disfigured (especially in the face), or otherwise not fitting social norms for appearance can count against a person in the job market, in romance, and in dozens of other ways.

The Regency era held that attractive people were more trustworthy, more capable, better adjusted and more worthy in every way. Recent research suggests that things haven’t changed. Across cultures, including our own, people judge others on the basis of their attractiveness, and the idea that ‘beautiful is good’ seems to require a ‘disfigured is bad’ corollary.

Then, as now, assistive technology focused on improving aesthetics as well as function. A wooden hand that mimicked a real one, for example. The disfigurement needed to be disguised or hidden in order not to provoke horror.

Could I write a heroine who evokes the typical horrified reaction to disfigurement that has been recorded through time, and who is, nonetheless, a sympathetic character that we want the hero to love? You be the judge.