The Grand Sophy, the latest Georgette Heyer release by SourceBooks, is a page turner that will keep the reader guessing and wondering when and how the heroine will top her previous outrageous acts. Sir Horace Stanton-Lacy, a rich widower who has recently returned from the Continent, convinces his sister, Lady Ombersley, that his sweet, motherless daughter ought to stay with her while he returns abroad. Several weeks after their discussion, Miss Sophy Stanton-Lacy makes a grand entrance:
Lady Ombersley, meanwhile, standing as though rooted to her own doorstep, was realizing with strong indignation, that the light in which a gentleman of great height and large proportions regarded his daughter had been misleading. Sir Horace’s little Sophy stood five feet nine inches in her stockinged feet, and was built on generous lines, a long-legged, deep-bosomed creature, with a merry face, and a quantity of glossy brown ringlets under one of the most dashing hats her cousins had ever seen.
Sophy could not exactly be called a beauty, but no one who had met her could ever quite forget her. Not ten minutes after her dramatic arrival, Lady Ombersley wonders: “What kind of niece was this, who set up her stable, made her own arrangements, and called her father Sir Horace?” The entire family, nay all of London, would soon find out.
Georgette Heyer wrote about two types of heroines. The Mark II heroine, who was a biddable and quiet young girl, and the Mark I heroine whose independent habits and dominant character invariably clashed with the hero’s personality. Sophy is the quintessential Mark I Heyer heroine: a tall, bossy, outrageously rich and independent, problem-solving, smart and capable young lady who will let nothing, not even Mr. Charles Rivenhall’s censure and outrage stand in her way. Arriving at the Ombersley’s house wearing a sable stole and carrying a sable muff, she alights from a coach and four with an entourage that includes several liveried footmen, a doyenne, an Italian greyhound, a monkey named Jacko, and a parrot in a birdcage. Even as Lady Ombersley struggles to hide her dismay, Sophy’s cousins are delighted, except for Charles. Everything about Sophy sets him on edge, especially when she won’t give way to even his slightest wishes.
As heroes go, Charles is a bit of a prig. He cannot help himself, for his father, Lord Ombersley is an inveterate gambler. Charles unexpectedly came into an inheritance from a rich relative who had made his fortune in India and he uses his wealth to pay off his father’s debts. In doing so, Charles becomes the de facto head of the family. A sensible man, he proposes to a patronizing young lady of impeccable character, Miss Eugenia Wraxton, and leads a bland existence … until Sophy turns his well-ordered life upside down. The reader learns one thing about Charles that others don’t seem to appreciate – children, dogs, monkeys, and parrots turn instinctively to him, and although he might seem harsh on the surface, he has a soft heart and is an easy touch. However, his dictatorial ways intimidate two of his siblings, Cecilia and Hubert, to the point where Sophy feels she needs to help out. This causes Charles to gnash his teeth at her presumption. At the core of this book are the crackling scenes between Sophy and Charles, and thankfully they are numerous.
The Grand Sophy is one of Georgette Heyer’s “larger than life” books. Everything – from the characters to Sophy’s antics to the settings – is bigger and grander than in most of her other novels, and the side characters are unforgettable. Augustus Fawnhope is a beautiful but a gloriously silly poet whom Cecilia loves. Cecilia, Charles’s lovestruck sister, is a sweet Mark II heroine with backbone and pluck, who sees the error of her ways, but can do little to rectify the situation. Enter Sophy to the rescue. Sancia, Sir Horace’s Spanish fiancee, is singularly lazy and unforgettable in her ability to drop off to sleep in front of guests, but Sophy knows she can solicit her support whenever it is needed. Lord Bromford, a terminally boring hypochondriac and Mamma’s boy, woos Sophy with the tenacity of a bulldog, much to the glee of her younger cousins, who watch with awe as their older cousin deftly skirts his advances.
Charles’s fiancee, the horse-faced and prudish Eugenia Wraxton, is Sophy’s perfect foil. On the outside, Miss Wraxton is all that is proper, but on the inside she is small and mean of spirit. Sophy sees right through her and is determined to open Charles’s eyes before he is leg-shackled to her through marriage. Where Miss Wraxton merely pays lip service to being a lady, Sophy is warmhearted and generous to a fault. Her rarified social status allows her to behave outrageously with impunity, a fact that the jealous Miss Wraxton never quite realizes. Miss Wraxton constantly lectures Sophy or, worse, tattles on her, as the following scene between Sophy and Charles suggests. In it they are discussing her purchase of her high perch phaeton, to which Charles has strenuously objected:
“I have no control over your actions, cousin,” he said coldly. No doubt if it seems good to you to make a spectacle of yourself in the Park, you will do so. But you will not, if you please, take any of my sisters up beside you!”
“But it does please me,” she said. “I have already taken Cecilia for a turn round the Drive. You have very antiquated notions, have you not? I saw several excessively smart sporting carriages being driven by ladies of the highest ton!”
“I have no particular objection to a phaeton and pair,” he said, still more coldly, “though a perch model is quite unsuited to a lady. You will forgive me if I tell you that there is something more than a little fast in such a style of carriage.”
“Now, who in the world can have been spiteful enough to have put that idea into your head?” wondered Sophy.
He flushed, but did not answer.
Although this book provides us with a fun romp through Regency London, it does possess one flawed scene. The scene is pivotal and demonstrates Sophy’s fearlessness in helping Charles’s brother Hubert out of an impossible situation, but Georgette Heyer is a product of her snobbish upbringing and time. Her description of a stereotypical Jewish lender, the villainous Mr. Goldhanger, is old-fashioned and ruffles our modern sensibilities. For many readers, this scene is a deal-breaker (see comments in link). Some stop reading the book at this point, others feel that the book loses some of its lustre, and others like myself manage to move on, realizing that authors cannot help but be influenced by the age in which they live. A friend of mine observed that Huckleberry Finn is full of racial slurs, but these statements did not prevent it from becoming a classic. Having said that, Georgette’s description of the Jewish lender did give me pause, but after a few pages, I was once again absorbed by Sophy’s antics and rooting for the characters I had come to love. When I turned the last page, I could only wish them all the happiest of ever afters.
I give The Grand Sophy three out of three regency fans. Order the book at this link.
Read this blog’s other Georgette Heyer reviews here.
Gentle readers: The Grand Sophy will be released today. A reissue from SourceBooks, this 1950 novel was one of Georgette Heyer’s best. Look for a month-long kick off of this highly entertaining book on Jane Austen Today, Austenprose and this blog.
Also:
Jane Austen's World 
This is one of my favorite passages from that book, when Charles tells Sophy:
“‘I shall be much obliged to you, cousin, if you will refrain from telling my sisters that [Miss Wraxton] has a face like a horse!’
‘But, Charles, no blame attaches to Miss Wraxton! She cannot help it, and that, I assure you, I have always pointed out to you sisters!’
‘I consider Miss Wraxton’s countenance particularily well bred!’
‘Yes, indeed, but you have quite misunderstood the matter! I meant a particularily well bred horse!”
‘You meant, as I am particularily aware, to belittle Miss Wraxton!’
‘No, no! I am very fond of horses!'”
[I don’t have the book here with me, and so I can’t remember the rest of the scene verbatim, but it continues with Charles objecting that IS an insult because his sister is not fond of horses and then stopping himself abruptly when he realizes how ridiculous this sounds. Sophy kindly informs him that his sister will doubtless become more fond of them after living with Miss Wraxton for awhile.]
I am extremely glad you pointed out the problem of that dreadfully anti-semitic scene. Yes, you can see the dramatic reasons for developing Sophy’s character that she does it, but it is extremely jarring and offensive.
Oh, yes, I love this exchange, which is so typical. Sophy has a naughty streak to her, which shows in this dialogue. Thank you for showcasing this scene!
This is one of my favorite Heyer novels. I giggled through most of it. My favorite scene is when Sophy steals Charles’s carriage and goes off on a romp through London just to prove she can handle his horses even though she’s a lady.
Yes the scene with the villain can be construed as anti-Semitic but he is the villain so I kind of took it at face value and just thought of the description of that of a villain. There are plenty of other references I’ve read in literature and in primary sources that are much worse that a description of a Jewish villain in a novel.
I see your point, QN, and had the same reaction as you the first time I read the novel just after college – I chuckled throughout the book and took the scene at face value. In my second reading, after years of diversity and awareness training, I became more attuned to the words Georgette so casually used to describe Mr. Goldhanger, and I can see why some people would be upset with her characterization.
Times have changed. Georgette was using the language of her day. To my way of thinking the book is still funny, but I felt I had to bring up the topic in this review since so many people might have a problem with this stereotype.
I will have to read more Heyer, starting with The Grand Sophy! THen, I can justify this book, which is languishing in my cart on Amazon: Georgette Heyer’s Regency World, by Jennifer Kloester
If you’ve read it, let me know. Especially if you liked it!
Georgette Heyer’s Regency World is a very informative social history of the era that Heyer wrote about. It’s a great book, but it does not give you much personal information about the author. Jane Aiken Hodge’s The Private World of Georgette Heyer will give you much more information about the author and her method of writing.
Hi Vic, thanks for this review – it is my next Heyer read! – know you have been asked this before, but if you could list your five or so favorites in order, I would like to know – I started with Faro’s Daughter and still feel that to be my favorite – that first encountered delightful surprise in discovering Heyer cannot be duplicated, though each read is delightful in its own way…
Deb
Hi Deb, My first Heyer ever was Arabella, which sits in my memory as a sentimental favorite and I also adore Faro’s Daughter. It sits high on my list because the heroine has to work for a living, which is so unusual for a GH.
My favorite Heyers are in order:
The Grand Sophy
The Reluctant Widow
Frederica
A Civil Contract (One of her more serious plots)
and Venetia, which I haven’t read for years, and which I hope comes out soon.
When I was young, I thought of Venetia, Frederica and The Grand Sophy as being the three best. Now that I am older, I appreciate the quieter excellence of A Civil Contract. The Reluctant Widow snuck up on me this year when I reread it. I could not put the book down and have recommended it to all my friends, who agree with me.
There are others: Sylvester and The Unknown Ajax are also wonderful. Let’s face it. In the Regency genre, I would pick Georgette Heyer over any other author, I think she’s that good.
The best is Jane Austen, but I would not stick a genre label on her timeless novels.
Hi Vic – thanks for your list! I just finished The Grand Sophy and so must say that I enjoyed it very much – couldn’t put it down really! – similar in many ways to Frederica – heck, I get all the stories confused! but like you, I enjoy the “Mark I” heroine much better – and there was so much humor in this, Sophy so over the top in her planning – an Emma run amok really with all her matchmaking adventures!
I would like to address the villain Goldhanger – I think that Heyer was writing what was true to the Regency era, not her own time here – I don’t think that she was being anti-semitic – the Jewish moneylender was a part of that society and Heyer, by making him the villain, was only addressing a reality of the unregulated moneylender as well as being humorous in the process by having him cower under threat of Sophy’s uncivil tongue and pistol. Indeed, we do cringe when we read it, as I do reading Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice or any other work that portrays such a stereotype, and that is a tribute to our own 21st-century sensibilities being raised [thankfully!] to react negatively to this – but I don’t think we can blame Heyer for being anti-semitic when she is so clearly writing a work set in a former time. I have read a fair amount of Heyer at this point, but not all, so do wonder if there are other examples of this anywhere, or is this an isolated incident? and has anything else been written about this? [I don’t have the Hodge book and haven’t looked at my GH Regency World -will do so – it is “not in hand.”]
An interesting topic for a post, don’t you think?
And thanks for this great review, Vic – and your list! I have so much to attend to!
Deb
Deb, I believe this is an isolated incident. I felt I had to address Mr. Goldhanger because there are so many references to this scene on the blogosphere.
Thank you for your kind words. I’m so happy to know you enjoyed The Grand Sophy as much as I did. Let’s hope SourceBooks reissues Venetia soon. That is the third of my three favorite Heyer romances. Vic
[…] Review of The Grand Sophy […]
[…] Jane Austen’s World […]
>A friend of mine observed that Huckleberry Finn is full of racial slurs, but these statements did not prevent it from becoming a classic.
The difference is that Huck is not racist himself but recognizes the humanity of Jim by first parroting and then rejecting the inanities he has heard in “polite” society–imo, it became a classic not despite the racial slurs but because it showed so strongly the horrible damage those racial slurs can inflict on an individual and a society.
Twain used Huck and Jim to criticize the society in which he lived and that struggled to acknowledge Jim as a fellow human being with rights and dignity, etc. The Goldhangar scene shows that Heyer fell into the trap of going with an easy stock character, and that’s really too bad because the rest of the book is fun. But for me, the scene made me stop and question what it is I want to get out of reading, and the answer is not easy stock characters that perpetuate stereotypes that foster us/them mentality. Fun isn’t enough. Words and stories are powerful, and taking the easy way…I better stop. I fear I’m starting to sound like Eugenia Wraxton and I think I’ve made my point.
I must admit Jane that I stopped short at the Goldhanger scene and found myself getting angry. I put the book down at this point, but, as I wrote in the review, I was able to move on. Interestingly, in discussing this scene with my friends who have read the book, my reaction compared to theirs was the most extreme. Goldhanger is a stock character. Many of Georgette’s characters are, but usually they are funny, like the spinster aunt who acts as an ineffectual chaperone. Thankfully, the nasty Goldhanger stereotype is atypical of GH, not the norm.
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
Actually, there are references to “going to the Jews” in many of Heyer’s novels. And, though I enjoy her books, I don’t give her a pass in regards to her anti-Jewish sentiments. Grand Sophy was published in 1950. By then, everyone was well aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. Frankly, Heyer’s depiction of the Goldhanger, at a time when the Holocaust was fresh in the minds of good people everywhere, is proof to me that she certainly WAS anti-semitic.
I think you are spot on; since my teens Heyer’s anti-semitism has troubled me (I am 60 now!) and I do think it is odd that a writer who clearly, according to both bios, had Jewish friends and business associates should feel this way, but then, having lived in England for many years I do agree with Elizabeth Jane Howard that what she calls “the casual anti-semitism of the British upper middle class” can be quite pervasive. It is not excuable because of the time she lived in — George Eliot lived a century previously and does not display it whilst Dickens and Thackeray did. Heyer has a heinous portrayal of a minor Jewish character in one of the mysteries as well –Christie is also quite often overtly anti-semitic too, but has redeemed herself by somewhat by the sympathetic Jewish characters in “Murder On The Orient Express” and “Mystery Of The Blue Train.”
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
I’m actually glad that the depiction of Mr. Goldhanger is brought up. I enjoyed this book very much but was trouble by that particular part of the story. I thought it might be Heyer, in keeping true to the Regency period, she was trying to reflect the views of the people in England during that time? Is it possible that Jews were looked down upon in England? Perhaps Heyer wanted to bring that issue up in “The Grand Sophy”?
Also, I notice that she writes a bit about the poor and the slum living into her writing, and I think she was trying to paint a picture of England that was a bit more realistic instead of a glossed over version as I see in some Regency romances. I think the depiction of Mr. Goldhanger might be an example of this. But I’m not entirely sure, these are just possibilities that came to my mind.
” Is it possible that Jews were looked down upon in England?”
Well, d’oh, of course they were. Remember that the stereotype of the Jewish moneylender was brought about by the Catholic church, which forbid Christians from charging interest and Jews from doing just about anything.
I feel it’s a bit bogus to go back to contemporary writers of the time and expect them to have 20th century sensibilities about ethnic stereotypes and religious prejudices; harder to figure out where to put authors such as Heyer and D. L. Sayers, who have their characters exhibit the prejudice without it being clear whether they themselves share it, in a time when they should have known better. At least in Heyer’s case it would have been an anachronism straining the reader’s credulity to have her upper-class English characters of the Regency period demonstrate enlightened points of view about foreigners, Jews, members of the lower classes, etc. In fact, it’s that insular, xenophobic smugness that she makes such fun of in Sophy’s exchanges with Eugenia.
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
I finished the Grand Sophy just a week ago and I
Heyer does not deserve a pass because she is describing the Regency period. Her novels have many anachronisms – women’s spech and freedoms, etc. She writes as a woman of the 50’s who is describing the Regency NOT someone accurately portraying the Regency.
Her description of a Jew is typical of the anti-Semitism of the 20th century. She could have described a moneylender without resorting to offensive stereotypes- or any stereotypes. Why not leave ethnicity/religion out of it altogether? As someone else noted, the fact that she wrote this not a decade after the horrors of the Holocaust came to light, AND used language that was typical of Nazi propaganda suggests that she was indeed anti-Semitic.
What shows Heyers true anti Sematism is the lack of wit in Goldhanger. He should have said, If ly the bucks would stop running to Newmarket, gaming at clubs or being ruined by women, then I wouldn’t have any business. Instead he’s a cardboard cliché so typical of the English and she wrote this so soon after WW II.
It is interesting that all of these comments overlook the fact that Goldhanger was operating outside the law. Jews were forbidden to hold professions under the laws of the Middle Ages (or earlier.) They devolved into banking and moneylending perforce. And they were the only people in the field by tradition, until well into the 20th C. in England. So, in the Regency era, anyone who would lend money to our youthful, or not-so-youthful gamblers, would have been a Jew. But Goldhanger is clearly not an honest man; he is a fence and as well, he does business with minors — illegal even by moneylender ethics. (Minors even now are not liable for their debts.) The real problem with this scene for me is not only that Goldhanger is an unattractive stereotype, but that Sophy goes far beyond what even so lively and free-spirited a young lady of gentle birth as she is depicted would have done. The whole scene is Jumping the Shark.
I have to agree that Heyer was anti-Semitic – in my opinion her least-excusable, but not nearly sole, prejudice. Having said that, I, too, have carried on reading and enjoying her books. There’s just no one else who compares, short of Austen herself
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
[…] The Grand Sophy […]
[…] The Grand Sophy […]