There's a perfectly adequate plot in here somewhere, involving the Holy Grail, the ex-Dauphin of France, and the Marquis de Sade. I assume Norton is probably responsible for the plot; I also assume she had nothing else whatever to do with the writing of the book.

The writing style is of course not Norton; as in all the Norton collaborations it's far smoother than anything she has ever written herself. The problem, I think, is mainly one of attitude.

This rather light alternate-history Regency is loaded with footnotes. Some of these footnotes contain genuinely interesting information, or clarify points that might need clarifying, when one is mucking about with early 19th century history, of which many readers will have somewhat fuzzy retention of even the real facts. Others, unfortunately, seem to assume the reader is barely literate, or seem designed to make the reader feel slightly off base, or to be intended merely to show off the vast amount of research Ms. Edghill has done.

Item: on page 95, we have Meriel picking up her ridicule--which is, of course, footnoted; it's footnote number 21. In the footnote we learn that it's a purse, otherwise known at the time as reticule or budget. Is there a reason, other than forcing as many readers as possible to look at the footnote and see all the research Ms. Edghill has done, to use "ridicule" rather than "reticule" or "budget", either of which would be confidently recognized in context by a far larger percentage of her readers?

Item: on page 344, we have the motto, "Piété, Justice, Liberté"--and also footnote number 67, helpfully translating this for the reader as "Piety, Justice, Liberty". Is there a reason for this footnote, other than assuming that the reader is barely literate?

On page 263, we have footnote 51, providing the url for a selection of jambalaya recipes, "Since no book set in New Orleans is complete without a discussion of the food..."

I could go on, listing foolish, gratuitous, or annoying footnotes, the places where I think she chose an obscure word or phrase rather than an equally correct but less obscure one solely to allow her to footnote it, or footnotes that provide far more information than the reader needs, but I think I've provided enough to capture something of the flavor of them. I should probably also say something about the numerous occasions when the characters behave like idiots, because behaving sensibly would cut short portions of the plot that Ms. Edghill wishes to spend more time on, but, as I write this, it's far too hot. ( )

Not as good as the first one. Opens with a very brutal murder. ( )

The second book in the Carolus Rex series, set in a fantasy Regency. The story starts of two years after the end of Shadow of Albion, with the culmination of that plotline - the wedding of the crown prince of England to the princess of Denmark. Sarah Cunningham, who was stolen from her world to this parallel world to fulfil some as yet unspecified work, is now happily married to her Duke. When she receives an urgent plea for help from Baltimore while the Duke is called away on espionage business, she goes to the rescue of the rightful king of France and his wife. Louis Capet, who refused to take on the kingship and oppose Emperor Napoleon in Shadow of Albion, has come to a New Albion which has not seceded from Great Britain in this world to live a peaceful life with his wife. All sorts of unrealistically complications arise, leaving the characters all over America, and when they meet up in New Orleans they are just in time to save the world from a power mad sorcerer who has made a pact with the devil.
A truly awful book. Unlike its predecessor which was an adequate story whose flaws were easily overlooked by any fan of Regency novels, this one is written in a markedly different style - and written badly - and is completely without a meaningful plot.
As the second book in a trilogy it should preferably have been written in a somewhat similar style and picked up on some of the plotlines left hanging in the first book - since Shadow of Albion contained no footnotes, nor did it try to explain every little difference between this world and the parallel world in which it takes place, I would not expect to be inundated by footnotes explaining everything from the name of New Orleans in this world to the proper construction of a reticule as well as assurances that the details of the story in fact are facts. If I wanted to know some obscure historical detail of Regency America I would have read a historical non fiction dealing with the history of this world. I have no wish to have my fiction reading continuously disrupted by assurances that these activities in a parallel world are the same as, or how they differ from, this worlds.
The choice of what to footnote and what not to footnote is obscure at best, and considering the obscure dialects too many of the dialogs are conducted in, it is hard to imagine that they are meant as an aid to the reader instead of to show of the authors research.
The continuity mistakes are aggravating – it should at least be possible to keep the familial relations of the characters straight from one book to the next.
The plot makes little sense, and since the author is unable to keep straight who knows what at which point, it is obviously not important for the book either.
The characters are lacking in depth, and all the descriptive passages in the world cannot substitute a plot or believable characters, even if they were somewhat interesting and wellwritten - and they are not. ( )

http://tamaranth.blogspot.com/2005/09/83-leopard-in-exile-andre-norton-and.html ( )