May 2026: The Secret Wife | Discussion

[karlimarie]

We’re almost halfway through the year… just… how?!?! I hope you’ve been enjoying your bookish adventures in 2026 so far.

Here are a few discussion questions that I found online. Feel free to answer one or all... or pose your own topics of discussion.

You can also comment on favorite passages, parts that stuck with you, or sections that didn’t resonate with you. Was there something you didn't fully grasp? Did the book leave you with more questions than it answered?

All answers and viewpoints are welcome and feel free to respond to other people's thoughts and analysis I'd love for these to be more than just questions you answer - I'd love for them to turn into a discourse.

…………..


Did you enjoy this novel? Why or why not?

The Secret Wife takes liberties with the history of the Romanovs. Do you think these were justified and that it still remains convincing as a story?

Dmitri is a morally flawed character, who makes a disastrous decision in Ekaterinburg. Do you, as a reader, forgive him for this and sympathise with his anguish? If so, why? And if not, why not?

Dmitri also makes mistakes in his relationship with his children, mistakes that reverberate down the generations. Is there anything in his background that might have led to this emotional inadequacy as an adult?

Did you sense any genetic similarities between Kitty and Dmitri?

The Kitty story is shorter and much less dramatic than Dmitri’s. Its role is partly to provide a way of explaining Romanov history to readers who might not be familiar with it. Did this work for you or do you think the stories in ‘timeslip’ novels need to be of equal weight? How did the movement from one story to the other work for you?

The Russian part of the story is told from Dmitri’s point of view. This means that the reader can only hear about events that he witnessed. Would you have preferred an all-seeing narrator who could have given more information about the Russian army during the war, and about the Russian Revolution?

Why do you think the author decided against presenting the narrative from Tatiana’s point of view?

What did you think about the creation of a sense of place in the novel’s main locations: Tsarskoe Selo, Tobolsk, Ekaterinburg, Berlin and Lake Akanabee. Did it make you want to visit any of them?

…..

Thanks again for showing up and participating in our little club. I can’t wait to hear your thoughts!!

 

[Romajo]

Finished the book yesterday and I hope to have time soon to answer the questions.
Just one thing: have you noticed that Lake Akanabee doesn't exist, but Lake Abanakee does?
Also, I want to note upfront that since I'm from Europe, our history is probably more intertwined with the events in the book then it might be for others. WW1 and WW2 were part of our curriculum, just like the interbellum. The Russian Revolution and the rising of the communism has even been part of my geography lessons.
A few days ago I was talking to my husband about this book and he had seen a documentry about the Romanovs a few years ago (I think it must have been the documentry that inspired the author, although he had seen on Discovery Channel instead of on the BBC).

 

[Kim Hansen]

The Secret Wife takes liberties with the history of the Romanovs. Do you think these were justified and that it still remains convincing as a story?

I wasn't familiar with the Romanovs and their imperial dynasty to rule Russia until I read this book. I found this book to be very interesting and believable; it surely convinced me and kept my interest all through my reading. I enjoyed both Kitty and Dmitri's stories and both helped me understand the historical fiction timeframe. I liked the change in the chapters as they switched back and forth.

One section that filled me with distress was when Dmitri found out that Tatiana was alive! Can one imagine the shock! What would one do? I didn't like the way Dmitri handled it and kept it secret from the woman that brought happiness to his life for so many years and had his children even though he never married her; she was so good to him. I was VERY UPSET that he would do this to her AND HIS CHILDREN. I felt he needed to honor and protect the family unit over anything else. I felt empathy for his children.

Then as the book went on, I felt sorry for Dmitri for all that he had been through and how life, circumstances and people cheated him. I felt he was a good man and forgave him.

I was happy Kitty and her husband worked things out in the end.

I really enjoyed this book and learned about Russian history that I hadn't known before.

What did you think about the creation of a sense of place in the novel’s main locations: Tsarskoe Selo, Tobolsk, Ekaterinburg, Berlin and Lake Akanabee. Did it make you want to visit any of them?

Yes, the creation of the novel's main locations brought a fantasy in my mind of being in all the places. I found myself living at Lake Akanabee as I read the chapters while Kitty was there and also Dmitri.

Truly, loved the book.

 

[Romajo]

Here are my thoughts/answers to your questions.

Did you enjoy this novel? Why or why not?
Yes, I did enjoy the book. I love historical novels/books/romans and also like it when there is a part in the now (or at least in the more recent history). So far this is one of my favorite reads (which is weird to say, since I mostly listened, lol). I needed a few days to let it sink in before I could start a new book. Book hangover is real, hehehe.
This book made me learn a little more in depth about the time in Russia during the WW1, the Russian Revolution and the time after that. It also made me look up more about the Romanovs and what had happened. So by the time July 1918 came in the book, I was a bit carefull about reading/listening, since I already knew the historical outcome.
Okay, fun fact: Tsar Nicolas and Emperor Wilhelm from Germany were relatives (cousins) as is slightly mentioned in the book. Wilhelm was banned to the Netherlands after WW1 and has lived in a castle near where I live, I even drive past this house/castle several times per week. We visited the castle years ago, I think during Easter, and they had Fabargé easter eggs on display.

The Secret Wife takes liberties with the history of the Romanovs. Do you think these were justified and that it still remains convincing as a story?
Even though recent dicorveries show that all 7 must have died in the murder/attack, there have been stories about at least 2 of the daughters that had fled or escaped. Some of these stories are mentioned in the book, like Anna Tshaikovsky. Due to the Russian culture, much hasn't been revealed or kept a secret. The Russian Revolution must have been hectic and chaotic. And although it's a little over 100 years ago, we can hardly understand that people wouldn't know what happened, if if it happened right before their eyes.

Dmitri is a morally flawed character, who makes a disastrous decision in Ekaterinburg. Do you, as a reader, forgive him for this and sympathise with his anguish? If so, why? And if not, why not?
Yes, I somehow still sympathise with Dmitri. He could not have known he was followed (well, maybe he could, but he was also overwhelmed to finally have Tatiana in his arms). He was making plans for the best and since there were no mobile devices, he needed to check in with the others to know if these things could continue. Of course it wasn't a good thing to sacrifice the farmer's daughter, but love makes you do strange things. On the other hand, the rest of his life untl he found Irina he suffered about what had happened and he had been looking and following all the threads he could, to find Tatiana again.

Dmitri also makes mistakes in his relationship with his children, mistakes that reverberate down the generations. Is there anything in his background that might have led to this emotional inadequacy as an adult?
He is still a product of his time and the way he was raised by his father/parents. He wanted to do his best, but hadn't learned how to do so. Times were changing during the interbellum and so were the opinions about raising your children.

Did you sense any genetic similarities between Kitty and Dmitri?
Besides they were both journalists, the only thing they have similar was to hide in themselves when things got hard. Like Dmitri got his depressions, Kitty fled into refurbishing houses.

The Kitty story is shorter and much less dramatic than Dmitri’s. Its role is partly to provide a way of explaining Romanov history to readers who might not be familiar with it. Did this work for you or do you think the stories in ‘timeslip’ novels need to be of equal weight? How did the movement from one story to the other work for you?
Since I love those timeslip novels anyway, for me it was not a problem. Most of the time it was well posted in what timeframe the story was. I also didn't mind that the 'Kitty part' was shorter. It was kind of discovering Dmitri's story through her eyes, while reading Dmitri's story, even though she discovered different parts in a different order than we as reader did.

The Russian part of the story is told from Dmitri’s point of view. This means that the reader can only hear about events that he witnessed. Would you have preferred an all-seeing narrator who could have given more information about the Russian army during the war, and about the Russian Revolution?
I think that Dmitri's part and view on the happenings was almost like an all-seeing narrator. He coverred so many parts of what had happened during WW1, the Russian Revolution, the interbellum, WW2 and what happened afterwards. You hear about what the soldiers tell him, what he sees is happening on the streets, what happens inside the castles and at the frontline. He speaks and sees so many people with different roles during these periods, so you also get their input.
Through Kitty's story you read the diaries of Tatiana, so you even get her point of view on what happens.

Why do you think the author decided against presenting the narrative from Tatiana’s point of view?
Since she was a historical figure from a royal family, you hardly can use her perspective. You must have had her diaries to know what exactly has happened, otherwise the story becomes unbelievable. Plus, if you want to make it historical true, the story has ended very soon. Since her pov wasn't used (except in the diaries), the author could take some liberties and let her escape.

What did you think about the creation of a sense of place in the novel’s main locations: Tsarskoe Selo, Tobolsk, Ekaterinburg, Berlin and Lake Akanabee. Did it make you want to visit any of them?
The locations were true (the Russian ones) or could have been true (Berlin and the others, like Brnó and the USA). Since Rosa was Jewish, it was a logical step to emigrate to the USA during the upcoming Nazi regime.
With the current situation in Russia I don't want to visit these locations, although they look spectacular. Berlin is still on my bucket list to visit one day (and is easy to do from the Netherlands). I looked Lake Akanbee up, just to have a sense of where that could be and found out that it doesn't exist. Lake Abanakee is on Google Maps though, so liked the literary freedom of changing those 2 letters to make sure that it 'could have been there somewhere, but it is still the author's imagination'.

Thanks for making me read/listen this book. I really enjoyed the story. It made me want to learn more about the Romanovs, about whom I had learned during history classes, but not much more than the were the royal Russian family and killed during the Russian Revolution.
Also, who doesn't know the song about Rasputin?

 

[Romajo]

One section that filled me with distress was when Dmitri found out that Tatiana was alive! Can one imagine the shock! What would one do? I didn't like the way Dmitri handled it and kept it secret from the woman that brought happiness to his life for so many years and had his children even though he never married her; she was so good to him. I was VERY UPSET that he would do this to her AND HIS CHILDREN. I felt he needed to honor and protect the family unit over anything else. I felt empathy for his children.

He sure could have handled this more gratefully. I think that when he had spoken with Rosa about finding his wife/Tatiana, she would have understood. It also would have made his relationship with his children easier.
On the other hand, I still don't feel empathy for his children, since they didn't want to listen to his story. All the events and upbringing has led to the way he handled the situation.

 

[Kim Hansen]

He sure could have handled this more gratefully. I think that when he had spoken with Rosa about finding his wife/Tatiana, she would have understood. It also would have made his relationship with his children easier.
On the other hand, I still don't feel empathy for his children, since they didn't want to listen to his story. All the events and upbringing has led to the way he handled the situation.

Dear Romajo, I enjoyed your review of The Secret Wife. I love the conversation of other's perspectives. YOU ARE RIGHT - his children SHOULD HAVE WANTED TO LISTEN TO HIS STORY. Our family patterns do mark the path most of us live our lives, BUT since attending therapy, some habits need to be redirected.

I love how you stated about" book hangover." It's soo true. I get so involved in a good book and have to go over it and over it in my head before I can start another one too. I always take notes when I read a book, it helps me understand it better and I think that even makes me hold on to it longer. Oh well, it's a great hangover to have. I have enjoyed the books Karli has had us read. It's been so fun.