Sharon Shinn was writing romantasy long before that term portmanteaued its way into reality and I still think of her, along with a number of others, as the real definition of the genre. 
This is absolutely a reread and I have no idea when I first read it. Presumably before I started tracking my reading?

I also suspect this book gets the “the protagonist is a teenager so the genre is YA” treatment and, yeah, nope. I don’t think so. I’m not sure if I can describe why - it’s not that its not interested in Corrie’s moral development, but rather that…Corrie’s moral development furthers the plot, while in YA the plot furthers the protagonist’s moral development. Also this story is shockingly uninterested in ethical conundrums, for all that there are many.

She did the whole purple wedding thing before GRRM and like…crickets.

The other thing that she does  is the trope of man who quietly adores a woman who has absolutely no idea about it. Which is perhaps just a point about how influential Austen was on the genre and we all live in the shadow of Darcy, Wentworth and - in this case especially - Knightley. Or there’s something to be said, given that such suitors are often foils of men who are overly aggressive in their interest, for the fantasy of a man who is so polite in his attentions and so careful that one genuinely can’t tell he’s in love until he says something. The consummate gentleman who doesn’t make his feelings his love interest’s problem. There may be something there.