Pat here!
A couple of weeks ago, Jo wrote: (link) “So, what do you think about this? If, let's say, the Japanese
had a thriving fiction market for books set in America, with American characters, but those characters followed Japanese social patterns and values, would it bother you?”
She was concerned about Americans imposing their self-made-man philosophies on English historical characters. Since most of the historical romances I’ve read recently tend to be about dukes and earls, I haven’t seen a lot of the noble boot-strap heroes, but I’ll assume they’re still out there somewhere.
My concern, however, was the question about imposing the values of other countries and times on historically different cultures, and after I gave it some thought, I don’t think I have a huge problem with it--unless we have Ashlee winking at the duke in 1790 and whispering "c'mon, dude." I think the intelligent juxtaposition of cultures could be mind broadening, or at least, eye-opening, and this is, after all, is one of the virtues of fiction. History is history, of course. If we’re writing romance and not alternative history, then we ought to stick with historical facts where feasible. But why not experiment with imposing the reader’s culture on the characters of people in another time and country? Wouldn’t it help the reader to better perceive differences by comparing and contrasting?
Besides, it’s not as if fictional people are historical fact, or that we can impose our assumptions of what people were like “back then” on the world as a whole. My assumption is that—despite 
culture—people are people everywhere. We can generalize and say the English aristocracy in the Regency were a self-satisfied lot not driven by ambition or interested in exploring new worlds, but that’s not to say there weren’t a few adventurers eager to make their fortunes the old-fashioned way. And maybe, in general, Americans in the 19th century west were driven people pulling themselves out of poverty through working the land, but who is to say that there weren’t some just as hide bound by generational legacies as the Japanese?
In fact, I’ve more or less deliberately imposed current events and issues on historical ones with the Mystic Series, then invented an imaginary island to play them out on, so obviously, I don’t have a problem with fooling around with reality. <G> I think that’s the whole fun of fiction—saying “what if?”
It’s historical fact that the over-taxed, over-worked bourgeoisie of revolutionary France aided and goaded the destitute and enslaved poor to rebel against the decadent aristocracy. That’s the reality. If I want to create a middle-class heroine who supports the revolution (this is in the beginning, before heads begin to roll), then even though she could be accused of having a modern mind, I’m still sticking with historical reality because women were some of the major instigators of the revolution. I give my heroine the same emotions as any woman when part of her family is imprisoned and endangered. I don’t think I’m imposing my modern beliefs on her when I have her bribe the jailer. I can assume that most women of the time period would have left the problem to their men, but in this case, my heroine’s father is out of town, so I don’t think I’m going too far outside of reality to have her send the butler out with a bribe.
Of course, I’m hoping by laying down that ground of reality, the reader will buy into the hero from a foreign land who gallops in and tries to save the imprisoned king while rescuing the heroine and
reclaiming the sacred cup that my heroine has used as bribe. I doubt seriously any Frenchman of the time would have attempted such magical feats—but a Swiss one did attempt to save the king (that's Count von Fersen on the right). So, again, there are levels of reality, and I think as long as we’re dealing with human nature, that we have a lot of leeway. And while we may personally perceive a time and place as clinging to a certain structure—as long as people are involved, we cannot say every person within that spectrum would behave the same. And a good story will use those differences to create conflict.
Admittedly, I’m pretty open minded (to the point of having no mind at all sometimes!), but what matters is how readers think since they’re the ones buying the books. So let’s hear it—how far out on a limb do you think we can go with our characters? Does a Regency romance character have to adhere to 
Heyer’s view of the world for you to be happy? Is it outlandish to think an Englishwoman of the late 18th century might admire American freedom if she’s living a confining life? And doesn’t throwing this kind of kink into a character —forcing them to contemplate something life-changing—create the substance of a story? Or would you prefer simply throwing in an unexpected love interest as world shaking enough?
And because I just received a huge stack of MYSTIC RIDER author copies hot off the presses, and I’m wondering how I’ll get rid of them all, I’ll have Sherrie draw a name from commenters posting before midnight Pacific coast time on Thursday evening. So, fire away!