When I started reading 'Rule Britannia', it seemed very firmly in the 'cosy catastrophe' sub-genre. It is set in rural Cornwall during the 1970s. After a period of economic chaos, the UK suddenly forms a political union with America, which to the book's characters manifests itself as a very unwelcome military occupation. The tale is told by Emma, a spirited but rather directionless young woman of twenty. She lives with her grandmother, an eccentric retired actress, and her grandmother's six adopted sons.

For the first eighty pages or so, the narrative gently and amusingly introduces the characters and bucolic setting. From then on, the story becomes a lot darker and quite gripping. It asks interesting questions about the practicality and morality of resistance to occupation, making it clear that there are no easy answers. This is the first Du Maurier novel I've read and I liked the combination of frivolity and thoughtfulness in her writing. The characters were entertaining but retained a certain depth and ambiguity. Even Emma's apparent naivety was well tempered by the strength of her protectiveness towards her family, even in extreme circumstances. In fact, the unconventional family unit rang very true to me, especially the conversations between Emma's grandmother and her father in which they constantly talked over one another.

'Rule Britannia' isn't a dystopia, but it leans slightly in that direction. I would still place it in the 'cosy catastrophe' sub-genre with a side of family drama. Nonetheless, it has a darkness about it as well, which kept me reading avidly. ( )

Rule Britannia is a bit of a disappointment, if only because the purpose of Daphne du Maurier week hosted by Heaven Ali is to celebrate the work of a British author whose books have stood the test of time, and this book is not one of her best.

It is however, a strangely relevant one, as Ali explains in her review. This is part of the blurb from the Victor Gollancz 1972 First Edition:
Emma, who lives in Cornwall with her grandmother, a famous retired actress, wakes one morning to find that the world has apparently gone mad: no post, no telephone, no radio, a warship in the bay and American soldiers advancing across the field towards the house. England has withdrawn from the Common Market and, on the brink of bankruptcy, has decided that salvation lies in a union—with the United States. Theoretically it is to be an equal partnership; but to some people it soon begins to look like a takeover bid.

Well, of course, with Brexit looming, and the prospect of economic chaos in plain sight, the plot doesn't seem as fanciful to us as it might have in 1972 when Britain was just about to join the Common Market (and my grandmother was sending us gloomy missives about it). I don't know if du Maurier (1907-1989) was also one of the naysayers, or merely satirising them, but she certainly beats the nationalist drum in this book. Her eccentric characters morph from bewildered onlookers into a somewhat amateur resistance movement, and though their activities are mostly only insults and mockery, the American occupiers and the London politicians who've stitched up the union take them very seriously indeed.

USUK (yes, say it out loud, it's not subtle) is being promoted as a union of English-speaking peoples, intended to form a bloc with Australia, New Zealand, Canada (huh? Quebec?) and bizarrely, South Africa. Methinks du Maurier (who was getting on a bit by then) had not been paying attention because South Africa (a) had Afrikaans not English as its national language, and (b) had long memories of the Boer War, and with plenty of hard feelings (c) had ditched Britain and became a republic in 1962. (Perhaps she had an old imperial atlas with South Africa still coloured pink).

The Trevalan household is a strange one. Emma's mother died when she was young, and her father, Vic, a bombastic merchant banker, has left her in the care of her grandmother. But Mad (a childhood abbreviation of Madame) has also adopted a collection of undisciplined boys, ranging from three-year-old Ben (who is black, mute, and the only one whose adoption is not explained); six-year-old Colin who was abandoned at a pop festival; nine-year-old Sam, who was a battered baby; twelve-year-old Andy whose intellectual parents died in an air-crash; seventeen-year-old Terry whose drug-addled mother couldn't name his father; and nineteen-year-old Joe, whose parents abandoned him to migrate to Australia because he was illiterate and he embarrassed them. There is also Dottie, who was Mad's dresser when she was on the stage but has reinvented herself as a housekeeper; and Folly, an ancient Dalmatian. All the flawed 'offspring' turn out to have some quality which is indispensable.

But needless to say, my hackles rose when Ben was addressed as a Blackamoor by Vic. And why isn't his adoption explained? Is there an offensive assumption about black parental responsibility happening here?

To read the rest of my review please visit https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/05/08/r... ( )

I never thought I'd see the day that I'd give my favorite author a 2 star rating, and this breaks my heart. But this book was nothing special. Not even Daphne can write a dystopian that I enjoy. I won't let this ruin her for me, but I am so disappointed by this novel. ( )

We throw away things that might harm us- memories, dreams…” –Emma

This is a story of an unconventional family and neighborhood who hangs on to each other during the US take over in London.

I’ve read a lot of book reviews about this novel even before I started reading this, and I saw a number of reviewers that said that this cannot compete to other DuMaurier’s work, specifically Rebecca because this is very basic. To be honest, I cannot agree nor disagree with them because this is my first ever Daphne DuMaurier’s novel (and although I first heard about Rebecca years ago, I haven’t had the chance to read it, hopefully I’ll read it this year!) but I love the way this story was told. Although this is, in a way, a historical fiction and the voice of the novel is serious from the beginning until the end, I still enjoyed my reading process mainly because behind the seriousness of the ideas given by the story, the characters offer a wide variety of perspective coming from the generation before that even the current one can relate very well to. To be honest, there are times that I always look forward to the end of every chapter because I am anticipating that there might be a funny action that might take place, and most of the time it did not fail me.

My favorite character in this novel is, of course, Mad, a woman of 79 (she turns 80 at the end of the story. Her birthday is kind of a combination of happy and sad. You’ll know why after you read this!) and Ben, a young boy. I love the uniqueness of Mad’s character presented in this story, she is strong in spite of her age, and I really admire her tenacity and decision-making all throughout the novel. I can now add her up to my list of my women literary heroes because the characterization of her is just wow. And what I mean with ‘wow’ is that Mad’s character is real yet still unique. (Hope you guys are still getting my point in here). Meanwhile, I also love Ben’s character because I just love this kid. Well, if you will read this novel in this instant, I don’t think I need to justify myself on why I love his character because surely you’ll love him too. But just in case you will not read it this instant, I’ll tell you: Ben is a funny, funny, and very funny kid. His kind of funny is not intimidating or tiring instead it is the kind of fun that either makes you smile wide or laugh hard (you choose your term of preference because I know it’s the same) he’s plain cute, and I’m a sucker for fun and cute characters whatever the genre I’m reading. I really love it when even though the story is on a serious tone, the element of simplicity and lightness is still present because it makes me feel close to the literary piece and its author even more. It feels like the novel is not just a recount of what is happening but of what is really happening. Because to be honest, in real life, even though we all experience darkness and heaviness and sadness, there will always this concept of breathing in and out, and that is what I saw in Ben’s character- he is a breath of fresh air for the novel.

This novel, I can say, is simple yet exciting. It is slow-paced at times but when the events heightened, it heightens. I guess, no one can really go wrong with a classic. 4 out of 5 stars to this. ( )

What would it be like if the UK and USA became reunited as a single nation? Would we really call it USUK? du Maurier's tale of the Cornish reaction to this partnership foisted upon them without warning was a "fun" read and thought provoking... I still can't get over the name of the new nation - I can't help it, it looked like "you suck" to me... ( )

relevant, as the UK considers the Brexit. The characters are lacking a little bit and some plot twists are a little far fetched. But it is an enjoyable read and the unknowns keep the pages turning. It's partially a political commentary, it displays suspect traces of racism, and it is arguably anti-American – or maybe just anti-stupid people. ( )

Super uneven - du Maurier is always a bit hit or miss for me (I love Rebecca, My Cousin Rachel, The Birds...not so much Jamaica Inn or Don't Look Now). Sometimes it's hard to tell whether she's a great writer who riffs on pulp themes or a pulp writer who sometimes hits on something great, which is true of many authors!

Re: Rule Britannia especially, it felt very uneven, as though it were a combination of several drafts - a satirical comedy version and a serious suspense/romance take on the same premise. At times things would seem quite serious and dramatic, and at others the narrator would seem like a parody character and the most absurd could-never-happen-in-reality things would happen and be taken as normal! I almost stopped reading midway through, but I did want to know what would happen enough to go on.

I wouldn't recommend it as a first or even second du Maurier novel, but if you're already a fan it's a fun oddity (being her last novel published ever) about an 80-year-old British woman leading a rebellion against US invaders. ( )

Daphne du Maurier's final novel is an odd one. I hope it was intended as a satirical farce, but somehow I doubt it. I perhaps might have understood it better if I knew more about British politics in 1972. This is clearly an anti-American piece, but it doesn't exactly regard greater Britain all that highly either. It strikes me as an odd tirade by a cranky old woman telling a story about another exceedingly cranky eccentric old actress who lives life like she has never left the stage and goes Mao (as in chairman) to foment a rebellion. There is some rather surprising bits of casual racism in here that I find bizarre even for 1972 when this was published. Calling a young black boy a "darkie" ... Really? Jeez. Anyway I think I probably speed read through some of the parts once I decided the book was failing me. The Americans are invited to invade Britain to form the YouSuck coalition ... I mean the USUK coalition and the American plan is to turn everything into theme parks to solve the unemployment problem. Maybe this should be shelved with "The Mouse That Roared." Actually, that's an insult to the Mouse. Sheesh, I guess America really has a worse image problem than I thought.

The intro to the Virago edition was informative and probably helped me understand the book the little that I did. I'm a little undecided how to rate this. I decided on 2 stars because for me it was less than what I consider an average good read. However, it IS well written - just that the story is rather off. And I did enjoy reading parts of it much more than my short review suggests. In a word, I was disappointed. ( )

This is the story of Emma (English region in Cornwall) who wakes up one morning to discover that the world is completely upside down: there is no correspondence, telephone and radio do not work, a warship is docked in the port and there are American soldiers advancing toward the house. What happens is that the action of the novel takes place in the future, a future in which Britain withdrew from the European Common Market, is on the verge of economic collapse and concluded that his only salvation lies in a political, economic and military with the United States. Theoretically it is a union where there is equality between the parties, but for some people it starts to look more like an occupation.
Even if this book is controversial, it has Dame du Maurier unique style of writing since it's a mixture of science fiction, history with a lot satyrical historical points of view both from Cornwall people and the American "invaders". ( )

This is the story of Emma (English region in Cornwall) who wakes up one morning to discover that the world is completely upside down: there is no correspondence, telephone and radio do not work, a warship is docked in the port and there are American soldiers advancing toward the house. What happens is that the action of the novel takes place in the future, a future in which Britain withdrew from the European Common Market, is on the verge of economic collapse and concluded that his only salvation lies in a political, economic and military with the United States. Theoretically it is a union where there is equality between the parties, but for some people it starts to look more like an occupation.
Even if this book is controversial, it has Dame du Maurier unique style of writing since it's a mixture of science fiction, history with a lot satyrical historical points of view both from Cornwall people and the American "invaders". ( )

This is the story of Emma (English region in Cornwall) who wakes up one morning to discover that the world is completely upside down: there is no correspondence, telephone and radio do not work, a warship is docked in the port and there are American soldiers advancing toward the house. What happens is that the action of the novel takes place in the future, a future in which Britain withdrew from the European Common Market, is on the verge of economic collapse and concluded that his only salvation lies in a political, economic and military with the United States. Theoretically it is a union where there is equality between the parties, but for some people it starts to look more like an occupation.
Even if this book is controversial, it has Dame du Maurier unique style of writing since it's a mixture of science fiction, history with a lot satyrical historical points of view both from Cornwall people and the American "invaders". ( )

This is the story of Emma (English region in Cornwall) who wakes up one morning to discover that the world is completely upside down: there is no correspondence, telephone and radio do not work, a warship is docked in the port and there are American soldiers advancing toward the house. What happens is that the action of the novel takes place in the future, a future in which Britain withdrew from the European Common Market, is on the verge of economic collapse and concluded that his only salvation lies in a political, economic and military with the United States. Theoretically it is a union where there is equality between the parties, but for some people it starts to look more like an occupation.
Even if this book is controversial, it has Dame du Maurier unique style of writing since it's a mixture of science fiction, history with a lot satyrical historical points of view both from Cornwall people and the American "invaders". ( )

Not Du Maurier's best work by a long shot, but entertaining enough for all that. The only thing that really irked me was the casual racism directed at Ben throughout the book - there was really no need for it. ( )

I’ve found in my experience that you can never go completely wrong with any of Daphne du Maurier’s novels—even this one, which isn’t exactly up my alley. I’m used to her books being historical fiction, suspense, or nonfiction, so I didn’t know how I would like this somewhat-futuristic one.

The novel is set on the eve of an ominous US/UK “alliance” in which American marine personnel are stationed in and around a small Cornish town. Emma is a young woman who lives with her grandmother, a famous actress who has a habit of adopting stray children. This is the story of Emma and her family, and how a Cornish town rebels against the US/UK alliance.

This book is similar to some of her other books and stories; in particular, the atmosphere of this novel reminds me a lot of the short story “The Birds.” Although the American marines aren’t outwardly dangerous at first, there’s a menacing air to them that becomes downright creepy over time. The book is described as being futuristic, but it’s hard to know exactly when this book is supposed to take place. It’s also been described as political commentary, but du Maurier’s message isn’t exactly clear—she’s a lot better at creating atmosphere as opposed to making political commentary.

As far as the characters go, mad is of course head and shoulders above the rest; I love that she’s both eccentric and humorous, especially in the way she dresses. I’m not sure, though, why du Maurier kept emphasizing people’s ages; we must hear over and over again that Mad is 79. Maybe it was foreshadowing to prepare the reader for the end of the book, but I thought that part of the story was clumsily done. Although this book is a page-turner, I don’t think that it’s one of du Maurier’s best, unfortunately. ( )

Witty, sardonic, and entertainingly funny, it's a novel that stands the test of time. And it's completely timely as well, given recent events! It's a book that I'd recommend for its political stance, humor, and lyrical prose style.

I enjoyed this book so much I sped through it in 2 days! ( )

I enjoyed this Daphne Du Maurier. It reminded me a lot of "The Death of Grass" by John Christoher. ( )

Anti-American clap trap. ( )

Interesting idea: unwelcome occupation of the UK by the US, and the plucky British resistance. Not very well written though (unsurprisingly) ( )

Not one of her best known novels. I think that’s probably because it deals with some uncomfortably “close to home” issues. Politically, a bit of a hot potato, especially in today’s climate. It’s rather simplistic but the premise is thought-provoking. Invasion for one’s own good. The cavalry come over the hill to save Britain – good thing or bad thing? Not fully finished by Ms Maurier either – she needed to revisit the book to deepen the characterisation and develop the story. Neither the Americans or the English nor the Celts come out as believable. ( )