I read Blume's "Are you there God, it's me, Margaret" but I think I was on the cusp of being out of her demographic. But, given what I hear about her books these days, I cannot imagine allowing a young child to read them.

When I was a young girl I loved Rosamond Du Jardin's books.  The Pam & Penny series, and "Young and Fair" in particular.  Y&F was about a girl who was orphaned by the Chicago Fire and who works in a department store.  She meets the owner's son who falls in love with her, and vice versa but the fact that she's a mere employee gets in the way of their happiness.  I have seen that these books are back in print.  The Betsy-Tacy books were good too -- I especially liked the high school (and beyond) books better than the little-girl books.

No clue.  All I've ever read are her Mitford books.

I don't know if I have BBC-A On Demand.  I've never done anything on demand, so this would be a new experience.

 I haven't had a problem with Reason & Romance.  Granted, the secret engagement is harder to swallow these days, but the rest of it does translate decently to the 21st century.

I'm a big fan of Jan Karon also.  I just keep forgetting to check if the last of the Mitford books is in paperback yet.

I bought the whole series, and started Reason & Romance (the S&S clone).  I put it down to re-read Jane Eyre, but will pick it back up afterwards because I do like it.

The series is Christian, but not as "in-your-face" as some might think. Smith regards her writing as a ministry.  The Bible is mentioned, and Biblical morality is discussed.  I don't know how that will interest you.

[that I could reach]

My parents told me I could read any book on their bookshelves that I could reach.  That's how I read Austen, the Brontes and Georgette Heyer, among others.  For some reason, I never got around to Delderfield, and only started Trollope when I was living on my own.   

But it's also how I got to read 'The Wine and the Music' by William Barrett, author of Lilies of the Field.   It's about a Catholic priest who falls in love with a Protestant divorcee.  The sex isn't graphic, but it's there.  I was probably 15 or 16 when I got up enough courage to reach that high to get it (hey, this was the mid-70s -- a much more innocent time).   It was, apparently, turned into a 1970 movie called Pieces of Dreams, with Lauren Hutton as the Protestant divorcee (Pam).  From the comments at IMDb, it sucked wind.  But I liked the book. In fact, I liked it so much that, when I saw it on Abebooks about 5 years ago, I bought it and now have it on my bookshelf.

I didn't see earlier that Mandy said she liked Jean Plaidy. So do I.  I've read most of her books, I think.  The New York Public Library had them before some enterprising publisher decided to re-print them.  I've never read anything by Philippa Gregory, but I gather she's similar to Jean Plaidy.  Can anyone confirm this?

I also love Anya Seton.  Her "Green Darkness" is one of my all-time favorite books.

Right now, I've put down everything for a Jane Eyre re-read.  It's one of those books where you notice something new every time you read it.  I'm having some fellow Jane(Austen)ites over on President's Day weekend to watch the 1973 adaptation.  None of us can remember having seen it when it was shown on TV here, so we are all looking forward to it.

Someone on Pemberley recommended some modernized takes on the JA canon by Debra White Smith.  On impulse, I bought all 6 and started the S&S clone.  They're blatantly Christian, so they're not for everyone.  But I like Jan Karon's Mitford books, so I would recommend the Smith books to anyone who likes Karon's books.

I loved Jane Eyre.  LOVED it.  I know CB wrote others, and I've tried to read Villette, but I thought it was stupifyingly boring.  I guess I should give Shirley a try, just to be fair. 

Let's just hope that Paul doesn't have the same weight and anger-management issues that Alec does.

Paul McGann?? 

Which is why I said it was necessary to separate "immoral" from "illegal."

Yes, Charles is a creep.  But Diana did more than just sink to his level.  She was a master manipulator of the media and used them to her advantage.  That's fine, but don't blame them when they turn the tables and take advantage of that access.

[(which technically constituted high treason by both parties)]

What do you disagree with me about?  I said he was immoral.  "Immoral" and "illegal" are not the same thing. 

Do you disagree that what she did was illegal?  I'm sorry, but since we are not a judge or a member of Parliament, our opinions have nothing to do with legality.   Think back to Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.  They were beheaded because they committed treason.  They had affairs while married to the king.  Which is EXACTLY the same thing Diana did. 

I don't normally quote Wikipedia, but I don't have any better sources at my fingertips right now (and my father, who has a PhD in History and who taught British legal history for 50 years, doesn't know how to use a computer).  But here goes:

From Wikipedia, via www.reference.com

The Princess of Wales later admitted the affair with James Gilbey (which technically constituted high treason by both parties). As it now seems likely this adultery took place in 1989, the tapes would have existed for a number of years before publication. There is conjecture that Diana, knowing of the existence of the tapes, instigated contact with the journalist Andrew Morton. This resulted in the publication by Morton of the book Diana: Her True Story, and the start of the "War of the Waleses."

Emphasis mine.

One thing I have to say is that the man who played St John was cute.   

[whether or not you like it,]

HM and Phillip did not support Diana.  They couldn't wait to get rid of her.

If you go back and read what I said, you'll see I said that what Charles did was immoral.  But, whether or not you like it, it's not illegal.  But what Diana did was.