Royal Escape

Rating:
Summary: Morally Inferior for Heyer
Review: I have just discovered Georgette Heyer and find most of her offerings to be absolutely wonderful! I bought this one because of the author, having enjoyed quite a few of her other titles. To be fair, she researched this one out very well, as the bibliography attests (though it is a fictional work), and the main characters, King Charles and his consorts, are probably depicted true to how they themselves saw the situation (??). Given the very real roguishness of the real King Charles historically, perhaps this is the best can be done with the subject material.

The storyline and characterizations I think most Heyer fans would find objectionable. The setting is England and the main character is King Charles who is trying to regain his throne after being removed from it by the Puritans (the same kind of persons who came to America because of religious persecution). King Charles is owned to be a rogue, womanizer, and bawdy, though with gentlemanly manners and a nice sense of humor. He is portrayed as a strong Catholic, and after his bitter defeat at the hands of Oliver Cromwell, he flees through the countryside trying to make for France. His advisers attempt to gain him places to hide and safe passage, drawing upon the favor of various Royalist Catholics loyal to the crown to hide the ex-King from his enemies.

The Puritans are portrayed as immoral, "Bible-mad" (this term is used extensively in the book) and enemies of the King. The one-sided way the Catholics are portrayed as good and the Puritans as evil is calculated to make you to hate all Puritans. But you wonder if the portrayal isn't wrong. The characterizations of this enemy are neither believable, balanced or logical, and the "good" side isn't good. For instance, in searching for the King, the "Bible-mad" "Pious" Puritans come to a goodman's home and search it. Not finding the King, they accuse his most lovely daughter of being the King in disguise. The King is known for being a huge man, much taller than most men, hulking and dark, with an ugly, repugnant face and they take this lovely, young and small statured damsel and insist on her being stripped naked in front of the troops to prove she is not the King. When the King and his people hear of it, they are much amused by it, but nothing is said of the poor girl who was stripped and what she endured, nor of the inconsistency of people who claim to be piously Bible-oriented and at the same time filled with lust (after all, they are the enemies in the novel). This appears to be calculated to prove that all Puritans are wicked people, but I found her characterizations of the King and his company and their amusement at the tale even more so.

The novel is tedious, and I almost put it down for good several times. Other than asking, 'Will he get away?' the only other side interest she develops is King Charles' penchant for bedding females, one case being developed quite strongly when a willing female presents herself to him. He owns he has fathered several bastards quite cheerfully and encourages others in his company to take females to bed, saying in one instance he would not pass up the opportunity to bed one willing woman were he in their place. The fact the woman he is speaking of is the wife of one who is hiding them doesn't seem to phase the King and we may presume that adultery was not a moral problem to the King. Noting the character of Charles as objectionable, his own morals as low, the lengths to which Heyer goes to characterize the other side as being morally evil may have been seen as necessary to make the King's side look "good". But it falls flat, with neither side being seen as genteel or worthy of approbation (admiration). Unlike her other characters in her other novels, where the main characters are very worthy gentlemen of gallantry, chivalry and worthy morals and manners, who show a sense of class, this man is not someone you would want to emulate or admire, or even associate with. Though born a King, you feel you have associated with a person of low degree bordering on the morals of a brothel by the end, not a man of dignity and grace. I found it difficult to wish he would regain his throne, since that position of power obviously afforded him many opportunities to indulge his lascivious appetites.

(...)

Rating:
Summary: Something different from a master storyteller
Review: ROYAL ESCAPE was a departure for Author Georgette Heyer, who usually produced either historical romances or contemporary mysteries. This novel is historical adventure, based on the true experience of Charles II of England after a botched attempt to recover the British throne for the Stuarts in 1651. The story of Charles II's escape from England to France makes excellent plotting and Heyer's characterization superb.

Immediately after Charles II's loss at the Battle of Worcester, he has a price on his head. He must flee England before Oliver Cromwell's troops capture him and put his neck on the block. Fortunately, he has supporters ranging from the lowly working class to highest nobility to assist him in his subterfuges and aid his efforts to sail to France and elude the Roundheads.

Heyer's attention to historical detail is always magnificent. Her bibliography shows the efforts she made to combine known historical facts with the characterizations of the personalities she renders. She had a keen shrewdness for sniffing out the drama of Charles II's adventure and compelling a reader to want the details.

The fiction part of this novel comes from Heyer's setup of the scenes and dialog. While she may have made a close study of the dates and places of Charles II's escape route, recovering all details is a painstaking process, with the written word, art, and music as the only methods of recording them in the 17th century. The conversations and thought processes Heyer provides come primarily from her imagination, yet her dedication to accuracy of the known facts makes the story easy to accept.

Not only does Heyer find the drama and suspense, but also the humor. Charles II may have had the arrogance many monarchs from the days of yore had, but he was probably the most charming sovereign the U.K. ever had. Unlike his stuffy, unbending father, who practically challenged the Parliamentarians to send him to the block, the son saw his circumstances more realistically and in the stress (or his unphased youth) made it a game. Charles II was a king who eventually accumulated a brood of 14 or 15 illegitimate children from numerous mistresses. In order to win the acquiescence of so many sophisticated women, there had to be something charismatic in his personality.

Because of Heyer's reader appeal from creating the Regency genre, Signet marketed this book like it was another romance. The back cover emphasizes the Juliana Coningsby portion of the adventure, but she doesn't enter into this 1938 novel until it is about two-thirds over. It's misleading, but this publishing house apparently looked at its bottom line for the best approach to sell it. Unfortunately, this might lose anyone who might prefer its straight historical dramatization.

The reader must also appreciate that Heyer repeats some of the language that was used in the 17th century. Having the characters refer Charles as a black man might be confusing, since he was clearly a tall Caucasian man, but the authenticity of her language helps make the novel fun. Likewise when the on-stage characters call another "honest." That's merely a biased way of judging where another's loyalties are laid.

The U.K. throne eventually returned to the Stuarts in 1660 after the death of Cromwell. When it became apparent his son lacked the authorative persona to command the New Model Army, Parliament eventually requested Charles II return to England and take up the job he was ascribed to do. (Those who signed the death warrant for Charles I then paid the price, even to the point where Oliver Cromwell's remains suffered indignities.)

Is it Truman Capote who takes credit for writing the first "faction" novel? Even if he coined the phrase after writing IN COLD BLOOD, he wasn't the first to do that type of novel. It appears Heyer was 18 years ahead him when she released ROYAL ESCAPE. The only difference was that Heyer chose historical adventure while Capote dramatized contemporary crime. Thanks to Heyer's superior crafting skills, this story is just as enjoyable now as it was when Charles II himself repeated it to friends once he took the throne.