Back to Top

Tag Archives: Georgette Heyer

I was looking through a list of period dramas for DVDs to put on my holiday wish list and discovered that there is a film version of Georgette Heyer’s The Reluctant Widow. I wondered how I could have missed this, as I can’t remember discussing it here or with any other group of Regency fans.
Anyway, I did a little digging. The film came out in 1950 and starred Jean Kent and Guy Rolfe. Currently, it’s only available on Youtube although it appears to have been on sale at some point at www.lovingtheclassics.com. According to IMDB, it was renamed The Inheritance at some point.  The Georgette Heyer fan site (www.georgette-heyer.com) calls it a spoof, but after viewing the first ten minutes, I think it was an earnest attempt at making the story into a gothic romance. They’ve missed the humor in Elinor and Carlyon’s first meeting and it seems they were already deviating from the original plot.
Here is Part I. Watch it if you dare! And then someone please explain to me why Carlyon is wearing a military uniform.

One of the comments on this clip says that Georgette Heyer was so disappointed with this film that she made provisions never to have her books made into film again. However, back at www.georgette-heyer.com/movies.html it says that there are two production companies in the UK and the US that have the rights to her stories.
I found this in a 2009 post at http://www.wordcandy.net/3-25-2009-georgette-heyers-film-adaptations

“After some e-mail hunting, I received a response from the literary agent who handles Ms. Heyer’s work in the U.K. According to his letter, his agency has been trying to interest production companies in dramatizations of Heyer’s mysteries for a long time, with no success. He said production companies “mumble about the cost of period drama, and whether there is an audience for old-fashioned crime”! Thankfully, he assured me that they plan to persevere until someone sees the light….”

And this from  a Feb 2011 post by Madame Guillotine at http://madameguillotine.org.uk/2011/02/01/i-love-georgette-heyer-do-you/.
 

If you get a group of Heyer fans together then talk with inevitably turn to television and film adaptations or, more precisely, the lack of them. There is a film version of The Reluctant Widow, which came out in Heyer’s lifetime but apparently it appalled her so much that she refused to allow any more.

However, it now transpires that she badly wanted her books made into films and there’s even recently been a Cranford style version planned with three of her books given an intertwined storyline – I’m guessing it would be Regency Buck, Devil’s Cub and An Infamous Army maybe as they are already linked by common characters.

Intriguing, but why haven’t we heard more about this?
I also found a Dec 2011 campaign to encourage ITV or BBC to do this at heyercampaign.wordpress.com/. This site includes a poll as to which stories people would most like to see on film: 1st place—The Grand Sophy, 2nd place—Arabella, 3rd place—These Old Shades or Sylvester.
And there’s a more recent petition, begun in September of this year with 215 signatures so far at http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/georgetteheyerfilm.
I haven’t had time to follow up any of these leads, but I’m tempted.  Much as I enjoy Jane Austen adaptations, there are so many good ones already! It would be so much fun to watch a sympathetic Heyer adaptation. I like the choices from the Heyer Campaign poll, but I’d also love to see Frederica, with its balloon ascension and the scene with the famous Baluchistan Hound.
So, am I the only one who didn’t know about the 1950 version of The Reluctant Widow?  Does anyone have any more recent news on Georgette Heyer films? Which book would you most like to see on film?
Elena
P.S. www.georgette-heyer.com/movies.html also indicates that there was a German version of Arabella—however, they apparently made a few changes as this promo poster suggests!

 

Imagine my shock and horror when I realized we haven’t had a LOLRegencies contest in two years!

LOLRegencies? Yes, indeed. As your friendly Thursday blogger this means that I am destined to blog on Thanksgiving Day, and relating that to the Regency is a bit limited. Yes, they had turkeys in England. Yes, they were interested in Turkey. And yes, it’s around the time of George Eliot’s birthday usually, but I’ve talked about all of those. So in 2008 I held a contest and on the right is the picture that started it all, Lord Elgin on a collection rampage in Europe.

Our winner was Maggie, who produced this little beauty (one of a number of little beauties):

You can view Maggie’s other masterpieces and the entries here.

So how does it work?

  1. See icanhazcheeseburger.com for the LOLcats (and other animals) cultural phenomenon.
  2. Find a Regency print online (hopefully one without copyright) and caption it and send it to riskiesATyahoo.com by Monday, November 22 with LOL Regencies in the subject line.
  3. Use a low-res jpg and don’t make your entry too big–the Elgin one, for example, is 245px x 300px. If it’s too huge and I shrink it down the caption will shrink down also.
  4. Mention how you would like your name to appear with your entry.
  5. You can caption a picture using Paint as well as more complicated programs like photoshop.

And the prizes: I have a truckload of Georgette Heyer books to give away, so I’m offering two Heyer Grab Bags. Most of the books are new, a couple are slightly used.

Obligatory self promotion: I’m signing at Borders, Annapolis this Sunday, November 6, 2-4 pm. Come and say hello and buy books. My buddies Kathy Love, Christie Kelley, Stephanie Draven, and Robin Kaye will be signing too so there’s something for everyone!

First of all, I noticed that there are several Georgette Heyer ebooks under $2.00 at Amazon Kindle: Venetia, The Black Moth, Fredericka, These Old Shades, The Quiet Gentleman…and more!

This past week on the Beau Monde loop we’ve been having a discussion about what makes a book a Regency. Likely this is a topic that only matters to writers, but I thought I would toss it out to the Risky Regencies community anyway.

I said that a book is a Regency if it is set in the “Regency World.” To me, the Regency world encompasses the British places, people, and events from roughly 1790 to 1830. The books are written from a British/Regency perspective even if the setting is not in Regency London or Brighton or Bath or a country house. The story could be set in British India, Europe (Napoleonic War settings – my Three Soldiers Series), or even America (War of 1812, for example), but it involves the British perspective, about British characters and involved in British social, political or economic concerns. Mostly the stories take place in Great Britain and are about the social world of the privileged, although some of my Regencies have been about characters who are not of the aristocracy, but whose lives are more peripherally involved.

There’s not just one kind of Regency book.

There used to be traditional Regency romances, such as the Signet and Zebra lines. These books were heavy on the social Regency, the manners of the time period. The Regency setting was paramount in the traditional Regencies. There are still traditional Regencies being published. Harlequin Historical publishes some, but, alas, those Regency lines are gone.

Then there are Regency Historicals or Regency-set Historicals, those other romances set in the Regency. These can be light and quirky or deeply emotional. They can have paranormal elements. They can be adventures or mysteries or relationship books.

Should we call other types of books Regencies? Historicals (non-romances) set in the Regency, usually trade paperback or hardback sized? Books like Patrick O’Brian‘s? Just how far should our definition of Regency fiction go?

What do you think? Does it matter to you?

To read my thoughts about 9-11 see Diane’s Blog. We’ll never forget.

A week ago, I told you what Wellington and Napoleon were doing on that date 195 years ago. Today 195 years ago, a young Nathan Rothschild, who had been instrumental in providing and delivering gold to pay for the war, stood by a pillar in the Stock Exchange. His efficient network of communication had delivered to him news of the Allied Victory at Waterloo. Legend has it that he deliberately gave the impression that Wellington had lost the battle, by looking gloomy and selling Consols (bonds) precipitating a panic of selling. Then he supposedly bought up the Consols at a depressed price, knowing their value would soar when Wellington’s courier finally reached London. If I’m remembering correctly, Heyer used this version of events in A Civil Contract.

But the truth of Rothschild’s involvement was somewhat different, as you can see in this YouTube video:

The Rothschilds assumed, as did everyone else, that England and its allies were facing a protracted war once again. Nathan Rothschild had bought up gold to provide to Wellington to pay for the war effort, but after the surprising decisive victory, the price of gold would plummet and Rothschild would suffer a great loss. Instead he gambled on the rise of the bond market. He bought up bonds and sold them two years later at a whopping 40 per cent profit. So he did make money, but he’d taken a great risk and had not exploited the country. His provision of gold, after all, financed the war effort. Of course he made a profit from that, too, originally.

Wellington’s dispatch arrived forty hours later than Rothschild’s. Here’s an account from The Telegraph’s review of Peter Hofschröer’s book, Wellington’s Smallest Victory:

News of the Battle of Waterloo was rushed to London by Harry Percy, Wellington’s only surviving unwounded ADC. He carried the despatch in a velvet handkerchief sachet an admirer had thrust into his hand as he hurried from the Duchess of Richmond’s famous Brussels ball on the eve of battle. He had no sleep that night, nor the five nights following, and had to row himself ashore from the middle of the Channel. His scarlet and gold tunic was still torn, dirty and blood-stained when he burst into a St James’s ballroom, a captured French standard in each hand, and dropped to one knee before the Prince Regent. It was Shakespearean.

Think of how instantaneously information reaches us today!

I really do hate to think about investments and bonds and profiteering now or in the Regency, although I think the sending of information so quickly, like Rothschild arranged, would make for an interesting episode in a book. That would be exciting!

I’m not sure I’d find banking in the Regency the stuff of Romance. Would you?


Come join the conversation on Diane’s blog on Thursday when Mary Blayney and I talk about the Regency and her new release (as of tomorrow, June 22) Courtesan’s Kiss. Mary will be our guest here at Risky Regencies on July 18.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 8 Replies

I recently read Georgette Heyer’s These Old Shades and I must report that the book was a major fail for me. I know many many others love this book, but I did not. I found the authorial voice to be overtly misogynist to the point where it interfered with my ability to enjoy the novel. I very nearly put it down unfinished.

On the other hand, I also recently read Frederica and I loved loved LOVED this book. I would like to know why no one has made a movie of this delightful couple and their love story. Frederica was a major win for me. I think I like it better than Venetia. In these days of Jane Austen remakes, there is plenty of room for Heyer movies. Where the heck are they? The two German movies titled “Frederica” or “Frederika” do not appear to be Heyer’s book.

For those of you who have read These Old Shades, did you like it, and why or why not? What about Frederica?

If someone were to be wise and make a movie out of Frederica, who should be cast? Obviously, Alexander Skarsgard should play the male lead.

Opine in the comments.

Follow
Get every new post delivered to your inbox
Join millions of other followers
Powered By WPFruits.com