Royal Escape (Hardcover)

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.

(...)

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews   Was this review helpful to you?

Report this