That is, with historical writing, there is always the problem of trying to stay faithful to the time period while capturing behavior that we modern readers recognize in ourselves. T.H. White pulls this off in A Sword in the Stone, despite the anachronisms (anachronisms to fourteenth century medieval England) because (1) he is obvious about what he is doing--the anachronisms are part of his style; (2) he captures the essence of human behavior across time.
I suggest the line from "okay, they didn't talk that way but that dialogue does capture the time and place" to "I can't take this seriously" gets crossed when human behavior becomes itself improbable. Jane and Helen behaving like quick-witted teens who have lawyer fathers at home is not believable--the anachronistic behavior stands out more.
Putney's novella, unfortunately, has both anachronisms and unlikely human behavior. At one point, the couple discuss the hero's evil (dead) father. Apparently, he had an affair and fathered an illegitimate daughter. Although he sent an allowance, his unwillingness to do more for the daughter is discussed with hot indignation--in a Regency novel--by the main characters.
In fact, by Regency standards, the fact that the evil father took responsibility and sent the equivalent of child support is impressive. He is no longer evil. A reader who understands the time period begins to suspect that he had a softer side (except the author doesn't want me to believe that). Moreover, illegitimate children--while they might be supported and even adored by parents--were rarely openly discussed using those terms. Mr. B's illegitimate daughter in Pamela is cared for and supported by Pamela, but she is also carefully shielded against any suggestion of an inappropriate background so she can eventually marry well.Those conditions may be unfair. They are reality. The righteous condemners are virtue-signaling like crazy but in reality, they would be causing more problems for the people they label "illegitimate."
More unlikely human behavior comes early in the novel when a young woman writes, "Once more I give thanks to my wonderful visit with you in India because that led to me being captured by corsairs on the way home."
What? What?!
That's the kind of off-hand remark that is either a huge joke or demands that the character stop and reflect: Ah, yes, she mentioned being captured by corsairs in her last letter.
But the text keeps going.
There were aspects of the novella that I enjoyed. The hero is a duke; his responsibilities are honestly spelled out (it isn't just an opportunity for him to collect ghastly statues as in the 2005 Pride & Prejudice). The heroine has invested in trading, which is entirely probable. She also makes a point that traveling is not romantic: it takes a great deal of "commonsense." Moreover, the BIG secret is big enough to explain the heroine's reaction, and it is quite believable for the time period.
And there are lots of pet cats!
Nevertheless, it is a pity when a not-too-terrible-plot with not-too-terrible-protagonists is ruined by everybody having to think properly...by modern standards. And it doesn't help when even by modern standards, they seem a little too coy and accepting.


