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 England has withdrawn from the Common Market and, on the brink of bankruptcy, has decided that salvation lies in a union—with the United States.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. ( )