Customer Reviews

Royal Escape

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If you love Heyer's light-hearted romances, or her mysteries, this may not be for you. It is more history than romance, and as the former reviewer stated, it's a little hard sometimes to distinquish the "good guys." Nevertheless, it is reasonably true to the period and the events. There were then, as now, Puritans and Puritans. Not all were exactly blameless - the "Roundhead" forces were guilty of as many atrocities as the other side. Incidents such as the one the former reviewer finds so objectionable did happen. To the Puritans, these people were Satan's tools as well as traitors. Many of the Catholics felt the same way about the Puritans, and Heyer does favor that side.

As for the Stuart immorality - none of the royal houses of Europe of that period (or any?) were known for their blameless lives where the opposite sex was involved.

Those who pick up this book because of the author's name and the romance-novel cover will probably give up on it after the first few chapters. There's no romance, though a couple of the young women involved in helping the embattled king to get from hiding place to hiding place have strong affection for him, and he'll flirt with any woman who gives him a smile. The history, I'm sure, is authentic, and quite interesting, for someone like me who knows little about the period apart from the fact that Charles II does eventually take the throne. As for a previous reviewer's comment about the king's Catholicism, I didn't see that at all; he was willing to listen thoughtfully to Catholics and was embittered--with good reason--by Puritan attitudes, but unlike so many of his predecessors, he wasn't into taking passionate sides and persecution of the Others.

It's not your usual Heyer, but it's worth a read if you're interested in English history.

Heyer's historical novels are typically not my favorites, but this one--possibly because it's so accurate and well-paced--was fascinating and fun. Even had I no knowledge of the events, it would be a great read. But Heyer's able to flesh out the facts of the well-known story. Since, as her husband boasted, her research is thorough and flawless, I never had to wonder (as one must with so many authors of this ilk), "Did it really happen like that?" That's one of the things that makes Heyer such a comfortable author: she's trust-worthy.

I have been a Heyer fan for many years and read all her Regency books over and over...sort of like the books equivilent of "comfort food"!

But she also wrote several books which were set in other time periods. Some are set in the late 1700's, others: her mysteries, are set in what was to her, "modern times", from about 1920 or so onward....these are not my favorites.

She also wrote a few books set in the Middle Ages, or in times far earlier than the other books. "Royal Escape" set in the 1700's, and based on a famous true story, is actually a pretty good book. Its not like the Regency books in that it has more to do with young King Charles II (age about 20 or so) trying to escape from England after his army was defeated by the Puritan dictator Cromwell. If he'd been caught, he'd likely have been beheaded as his father, King Charles I, was, and several of his friends and supporters who were caught after the battle was lost...Therefore most of the book follows history and the many adventures young Charles had in getting away from the troops pursuing him and the high price on his head which would have encouraged many people to turn him in.

As mentioned, its based on the true story and well told by Heyer. I don't want to give away all the story for those who have not read it, but I found it interesting and enjoyable though not up to the level of the better Regency books.

Another excellent book on young Charles II, is The Child from the Sea by Elizabeth Goudge. This is based on a true story: the love affair of young Prince Charles, before he became king, with an island girl who gave birth to his son. It is a very good, very moving story that will stay with you. The events in it occur PRIOR to "Royal Escape"....

Georgette Heyer is a writer unparralled today in her descriptions of England and the social practices of the day. At times a little wordy, just know that it may be an acquired taste that becomes an addiction. I wish someone would make CDs of all of her books. They are a delight.

I love this book. Charles II is one of my favourite real people in history and this book creates him as a real breathing person. The events of this book were true and most of the story is the one that Charles himself told on the boat as he returned to England as king, 9 years after the event of the book and Samuel Pepys recorded. Because the tale is Charles own story the detail that Georgette Heyer puts in the book are often the king's own memories and the lightheartedness of the character relects his own descriptions of his actions.

Charles certainly was an unusual man for his time and the story of his escape may be one of the explanations of why he was a man who wore his kingship very lightly yet valued it above all. It was hard won.

True there is no suspense, anyone who reads history knows Charles did escape but if it were not a true tale it would be one which was described as an historical romp.

The book does lack the romance of other books but the fact that Georgette Heyer found enough drama in the tale without rewriting recorded history adds to the book

He was also the protype for the lovable rakes and rogues that Georgette Heyer often made her heros.

Charles II, a king with a price on his head must flee England so as not to lose his head as was the fate of his father in Georgette Heyer's THE ROYAL ESCAPE. The story lacks the bounce and style of her wonderful Regencies, but then it is an often told true story. When everyone knows the story it does not have the spice of fiction and yet this is a beloved story of a young man who would later regain his thrown.

Not the best of Heyer's works, but it is worth a read to explore other aspects of her writings.

Nash Black, author of SINS OF THE FATHERS and HAINTS.

This is the third of Georgette Heyer's Historical novels I have read --- the previous ones being Simon the Coldheart, The Conqueror, and My John. I have never been interested in these types of books, but since they were written by my absolute favorite author (I have read twelve of her Regency novels & two of her Mystery ones and enjoyed all of them)I decided to read them. I find Royal Escape not as interesting as the other three, but still worth reading. I look forward to reading her other Historical novels The Spanish Bride and An Infamous Army followed by the rest of her Mystery and Regency novels.

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.

(...)

I love Georgette Heyer's books, particularly her later ones. This book was such a disappointment. It was tedious, with unlikeable characters and no romance. The book never seemed to build to a climax just dragged on. Do not buy this book - look for The Grand Sophy or The Reluctant Widow.