What do you think?
Rate this book
King Charles III
"The most spectacular, gripping and wickedly entertaining piece of lèse-majesté that British theatre has ever seen... blessed with wit, clarity and moments of deeper feeling. Outstanding and provocative... There is barely a moment when the fizz goes out of the writing and the narrative keeps springing surprises.... tremendous." - Telegraph
Mike Bartlett's provocative ‘future history play’ explores the people beneath the crowns, the unwritten rules of our democracy, and the conscience of Britain’s most famous family.
Queen Elizabeth II is dead. After a lifetime of waiting, her son ascends the throne. A future of power. But how to rule? The play draws on the style and structure of a Shakespearean history play, with much of the dialogue written in blank verse, a comic subplot, and even the occasional appearance of a significant ghost.
King Charles III premiered at the Almeida Theatre, London, in April 2014.
"Bold, brilliant and unstoppably entertaining... all the intrigue and forward momentum of a real history play. The grandeur too... King Charles III makes us care, makes us laugh, and no doubt will make us argue too. Theatre doesn’t get much better than this." - The Times
"A meaty, hilarious, dizzyingly audacious state of the nation political thriller... elevates the tawdriness of the Royal soap opera into something sublime and serious... a thrilling working through of ideas about modern Britain." - Time Out (London)
"Immensely enjoyable....convincingly plausible... remarkable and thought provoking." - What's On Stage
"Wonderfully original… Bartlett's brilliant text pulses with Shakespearean resonances… a right royal triumph." - The Stage
Mike Barlett is an Olivier Award-winning playwright whose plays have been seen at theatres including the National Theatre, Royal Court Theatre, Bush Theatre and Sheffield Theatres in the UK, and off-Broadway in New York.
Mike Bartlett's provocative ‘future history play’ explores the people beneath the crowns, the unwritten rules of our democracy, and the conscience of Britain’s most famous family.
Queen Elizabeth II is dead. After a lifetime of waiting, her son ascends the throne. A future of power. But how to rule? The play draws on the style and structure of a Shakespearean history play, with much of the dialogue written in blank verse, a comic subplot, and even the occasional appearance of a significant ghost.
King Charles III premiered at the Almeida Theatre, London, in April 2014.
"Bold, brilliant and unstoppably entertaining... all the intrigue and forward momentum of a real history play. The grandeur too... King Charles III makes us care, makes us laugh, and no doubt will make us argue too. Theatre doesn’t get much better than this." - The Times
"A meaty, hilarious, dizzyingly audacious state of the nation political thriller... elevates the tawdriness of the Royal soap opera into something sublime and serious... a thrilling working through of ideas about modern Britain." - Time Out (London)
"Immensely enjoyable....convincingly plausible... remarkable and thought provoking." - What's On Stage
"Wonderfully original… Bartlett's brilliant text pulses with Shakespearean resonances… a right royal triumph." - The Stage
Mike Barlett is an Olivier Award-winning playwright whose plays have been seen at theatres including the National Theatre, Royal Court Theatre, Bush Theatre and Sheffield Theatres in the UK, and off-Broadway in New York.
96 pages, Paperback
First published April 10, 2014
15 people are currently reading
379 people want to read
About the author
Mike Bartlett
38 books41 followersMichael Bartlett is a British playwright. Mike Bartlett was born on 7 October 1980 in Abingdon, Oxford, England. He attended Abingdon School, then studied English and Theatre Studies at the University of Leeds. In October 2013, Mike won Best New Play at The National Theatre Awards for his play Bull, beating plays from both Alan Ayckbourn and Tom Wells.
(source)
(source)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 142 reviews
July 13, 2015
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b061fmtyDescription: After a lifetime of waiting, Charles ascends the throne. A future of power. But how to rule? Mike Bartlett's 'future history' play won the 2015 Olivier Award for Best New Play. The production, directed by Rupert Goold, premiered at the Almeida Theatre before moving to the West End in a co-production with Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions.
This "bracingly provocative and outrageously entertaining new play" (The Independent) explores the people underneath the crowns, the unwritten rules of our democracy, and the conscience of Britain's most famous family.
KING CHARLES III was first produced by the Almeida Theatre and subsequently co-produced at the Wyndham's Theatre in the West End of London by Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions in association with Lee Dean & Charles Diamond and Tulchin Bartner Productions. The sound designer for the theatre production was Paul Arditti.
Mike Bartlett's radio play NOT TALKING won both the Imison and Tinniswood Awards in 2007. He has been Writer-In-Residence at the both the National Theatre and The Royal Court Theatre. His play LOVE, LOVE, LOVE won Best New Play in the 2011 Theatre Awards UK; COCK won an Olivier Award in 2010 for Outstanding Achievement in an Affiliate Theatre, as did BULL in 2015. As well as winning the Olivier Award for Best New Play, KING CHARLES III won the Critics' Circle Award for Best Play of 2014.
Due to rights restrictions, audio for this programme is available only within the UK.
HAH - excellent fayre. A play rendered as if an historical fiction, written in blank verse, starring the UK's present royal family and I bet this ruffled more than just a few feathers. Fantastic.
I love the soliloquies, the Diana ghost, the admonisions to KCIII to keep his mouth shut, AND what about Jocelyn Pook - count me as an instant fan!
THE best west end show since Book of Mormon and Collaborators, yet I doubt if the Royal Box was used.
As a mild piece of trivia, Elizabeth has only ~50 days or so left before she out queens Victoria as longest ruling monarch.
Go Lizzy!
Another trivia snippet, Book of Mormon has just become the first show to break the £200 barrier for a ticket - that is one fantastic show!
Huzzah for free speech and artistic licence. Fully recommended.
Charles Tim Pigott-Smith
Camilla Margot Leicester
William Oliver Chris
Kate Lydia Wilson
Harry Richard Goulding
Mr Evans Adam James
Mr Stevens Nicholas Rowe
James Reiss Miles Richardson
Jess Tafline Steen
Sarah/Diana/TV Producer Katie Brayben
Spencer/Sir Gordon/Archbishop/Kebab Man Paterson Joseph
June 6, 2017
Mike Bartlett proves once again to not only being one of the most provocatively versatile and witty contemporary playwrights, but a master craftsman as well. His 'faux' Shakespearean history play, lampooning the current Windsors, is a master stroke in blank verse and iambic pentameter, with Diana making an appearance as a Ghost and ambitious Kate becoming a Lady MacBeth figure to ensure her husband's & son's legacies.
On 2nd reading: Although less than 2 years have passed since my initial reading, I wanted to re-read this upon having seen the recent PBS adaptation, which unfortunately truncated the play quite a bit, cutting about a third of it, and subtly changing the ending. The play still holds up quite well, and seeing it laid out on the page actually adds to one's appreciation ... although there is something to be said for seeing it performed also. Am curious whether history will be kind to the play, once real events catch up to Bartlett's imagined fabrication.
On 2nd reading: Although less than 2 years have passed since my initial reading, I wanted to re-read this upon having seen the recent PBS adaptation, which unfortunately truncated the play quite a bit, cutting about a third of it, and subtly changing the ending. The play still holds up quite well, and seeing it laid out on the page actually adds to one's appreciation ... although there is something to be said for seeing it performed also. Am curious whether history will be kind to the play, once real events catch up to Bartlett's imagined fabrication.
July 9, 2019
I read this in 2015 and was privileged to work on the Ohio premiere in 2018 with Ohio Shakespeare Festival - exciting stuff for a Shakespeare company. As per usual with plays in general and Shakespearean-type stuff in particular, reading the script does it no justice. Hearing different voices in the roles and seeing it done properly made all the difference here. Since Harry's marriage to Meghan the window of plausibility for the play has essentially closed, but it remains an intriguing piece nonetheless. Only time will tell...
February 12, 2017
My favorite play of 2016, a year in which I had the pleasure of seeing a wide variety of plays. I love the conundrums and counterintuitive arguments and storylines in this play WHICH WAS WRITTEN IN IAMBIC PARAMETER thank you very much. Almost as pleasurable to read as to see on stage.
September 7, 2022
British read
December 30, 2014
Very interesting modern day 'historical' play complete with blank verse. Diana turns up as a ghost and Kate is a Lady Macbeth figure, which made me feel a little queasy because after all they are still real people and somebody's dead mother, but that is what free speech is all about. What I didn't like was Harry who is characterised as a sullen teenager who falls in love with another sullen teenager, a commoner art student. Harry, for one thing, is in his mid-twenties and has a very responsible army job, so I think his character could've had more depth to it and I don't believe for a second that he would decide to leave the monarchy just because a sarky, uninspiring art student told him to. But Bartlett is playing around with our modern monarchy in the same way as Shakespeare did, creating heroes and villains in the same mould. This is a brilliant play to watch.
October 2, 2022
Was there ever a better time to read this?
Fascinating play and it's a bit scary how Mike Bartlett correctly predicted the future. (re: Harry)
Fascinating play and it's a bit scary how Mike Bartlett correctly predicted the future. (re: Harry)
November 21, 2018
Highly entertaining, Shakespearean future history play in blank verse. The Queen is dead, long live the King? Not so very much and things escalate quickly when King Charles III rules. Wish I could've seen it in theatre!
November 8, 2025
Like Shakespearean English, the monarchy, too, feels like an anachronism today. Both are relics, one of an antiquated dramatic form, the other of an irrelevant political institution. Mike Bartlett's play, King Charles III, a modern Shakespearean palace drama, is awkward and stilted, totally implausible, and expressed in garbled iambs with prosaic enjambments—and that's the point. It's a play imagining a power struggle between King Charles and parliament in a five-act play written in blank verse, and the whole thing looks and sounds absurd. Iambs and kings are outdated. "Time is out of joint," Hamlet might have said of it.
It is a play that both in its form and in its dramatic action throws the monarchy into stark contrast with modern diction and democratic realpolitik. King Charles becomes king and is immediately plunged into politics. Parliament wants to pass a bill allowing the government to censor journalists, a despotic restriction on free press and free speech. Charles' response is equally despotic: he refuses to give royal assent to the bill, dissolves parliament and places a tank in front of the palace to intimidate protesters. He has waited his whole life to become king and now he is king, he wonders what this role means. Is the monarch just a public figurehead or, in corporate-speak, a brand? Is his role simply to listen to the prime minister, or to advise? The royal family, like Elizabethan drama, seems pompous, hollow and wooden in this contemporary world.
The play is a pastiche of familiar tragedies—Charles at times is bookish and pensive like Hamlet. At other times, he is more like King Lear, a conflicted king (and not really a king) whose self and country are divided, and being further torn apart. William and Kate are clearly modeled on Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, not plotting murder, but contriving to take power, motivated by craven ambition and buttressed by their popularity. King Charles' personal adviser, James, is an obvious Iago, a cunning underling playing two sides and orchestrating his own desired outcomes. In the background, the ghost of Diana appears and gives prophecies to Charles and William—like the ghost of King Hamlet—to instigate them to action or perhaps—like the ghost of Banquo—to trouble and torment them. In the end, King Charles becomes a Richard II, dethroned and disempowered. Harry—who frequently talks in prose rather than verse—seems to sit outside both the royal family and the highfalutin style of Shakespearean English. But at the end of the play, when a soon-to-be-anointed King William asks him to break ties with a lower-class art student, Harry returns to script, acting dutifully like an obedient prince and speaking in the proper pentameters. Unlike Romeo, he chooses family over love in the end.
It is a play that is both sonorous and silly. At the end of Act 1, Scene 1, Charles' rhyming couples seem childishly forced:
Those rhyming monosyllables ("be" and "me") give it the cadence of a nursery rhyme. But other times he is more grandiloquent and dignified, and philosophical:
It's an eloquent inversion of the Shakespearean idea: the king as a divided self, a man and a nation, a body and a people. In the modern world, Charles' royal self is a grand nothing. Although he is king, people will only see him as Prince Charles, an aged son, a broadcast personality, a man on TV, not a king in court. The crown only elevates him to the status of a puppet. The medieval king had two bodies, as Ernst Kantorowicz said, but a modern king seems to be nothing but an empty vessel.
Overall, it's hard to rate. It's a terrible play (Charles' abdication happens so abruptly, William and Kate are so winsome, Harry is not loutish enough) but I think that's the point. The issue of succession feels quaintly Jacobean.
It is a play that both in its form and in its dramatic action throws the monarchy into stark contrast with modern diction and democratic realpolitik. King Charles becomes king and is immediately plunged into politics. Parliament wants to pass a bill allowing the government to censor journalists, a despotic restriction on free press and free speech. Charles' response is equally despotic: he refuses to give royal assent to the bill, dissolves parliament and places a tank in front of the palace to intimidate protesters. He has waited his whole life to become king and now he is king, he wonders what this role means. Is the monarch just a public figurehead or, in corporate-speak, a brand? Is his role simply to listen to the prime minister, or to advise? The royal family, like Elizabethan drama, seems pompous, hollow and wooden in this contemporary world.
The play is a pastiche of familiar tragedies—Charles at times is bookish and pensive like Hamlet. At other times, he is more like King Lear, a conflicted king (and not really a king) whose self and country are divided, and being further torn apart. William and Kate are clearly modeled on Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, not plotting murder, but contriving to take power, motivated by craven ambition and buttressed by their popularity. King Charles' personal adviser, James, is an obvious Iago, a cunning underling playing two sides and orchestrating his own desired outcomes. In the background, the ghost of Diana appears and gives prophecies to Charles and William—like the ghost of King Hamlet—to instigate them to action or perhaps—like the ghost of Banquo—to trouble and torment them. In the end, King Charles becomes a Richard II, dethroned and disempowered. Harry—who frequently talks in prose rather than verse—seems to sit outside both the royal family and the highfalutin style of Shakespearean English. But at the end of the play, when a soon-to-be-anointed King William asks him to break ties with a lower-class art student, Harry returns to script, acting dutifully like an obedient prince and speaking in the proper pentameters. Unlike Romeo, he chooses family over love in the end.
It is a play that is both sonorous and silly. At the end of Act 1, Scene 1, Charles' rhyming couples seem childishly forced:
But now I'll rise to show things have to be
The Queen is dead, long live the King. That's me.
Those rhyming monosyllables ("be" and "me") give it the cadence of a nursery rhyme. But other times he is more grandiloquent and dignified, and philosophical:
Then soon I'll have no name and nameless I
Have not myself, and having not myself,
Possess not mouth nor tongue nor brain, instead,
I am an empty vessel, waiting for
Instruction, soulless and uncorporate,
And like I saw on television when
I was a younger man, I'm Charles no more
The human being, but transformed into
A Spitting Image puppet, lying prone
Upon the table watching for some man
To come and then inserting his own hand,
Do operate the image of the King.
It's an eloquent inversion of the Shakespearean idea: the king as a divided self, a man and a nation, a body and a people. In the modern world, Charles' royal self is a grand nothing. Although he is king, people will only see him as Prince Charles, an aged son, a broadcast personality, a man on TV, not a king in court. The crown only elevates him to the status of a puppet. The medieval king had two bodies, as Ernst Kantorowicz said, but a modern king seems to be nothing but an empty vessel.
Overall, it's hard to rate. It's a terrible play (Charles' abdication happens so abruptly, William and Kate are so winsome, Harry is not loutish enough) but I think that's the point. The issue of succession feels quaintly Jacobean.
January 15, 2022
fantastically well written
December 20, 2016
As soon as the first act of this play was over, I got on my phone and ordered the script. It was so meaty on stage that I just knew there was more to it than I was getting. And I was right.
Queen Elizabeth II has died and her son Charles, after a life-time of waiting, is ready to ascend the throne. Or is he? He himself has doubts. Is he better as a family member who spends nearly all his time visiting people and dedicating things and so on? Or was he really meant to rule?
Almost immediately Charles begins to discover that he probably is not a Monarch. The first bill to pass the Commons and come to him is a law restricting the press. Charles does not agree with it and demands that Parliament revise it and consult him on the revisions. He won’t sign it otherwise. The Prime Minister is livid: that's NOT the way things are done. The King is a virtual rubber stamp. And besides, his mother never made a fuss, just signed everything that came to her regardless of her feelings. (We hear the plaintive cry, "Why can't you be more like your mother?" in his words.)
But Charles refuses. He interprets the Monarchy as an active role, someone who suggests, advises, gives opinions which Parliament takes into view when writing and passing laws.
Parliament and Charles come to an impasse: neither will budge and any further discussions only serve to make each one dig in deeper. Charles goes so far as to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. He even triples the ceremonial guards at the palace and places a tank on the grounds. The Prime Minister goes on TV and tries to convince the people that Charles doesn't understand Monarchy. And the people split: about half in support of the King and the other half in support of Parliament.
It's dangerous times and a revolution appears possible. For many years, the British people have been questioning the role of the Royal Family. What do they do that is so important that the people have to pay to support them? Is it time to give them the old “heave ho”?
Extremely good questions which are answered at the end of the play.
To me the most exciting part is that it's written in iambic pentameter - Shakespeare's language. First of all, it seems perfectly natural. You fall into the rhythm and almost don't realize because it’s modern English in an old form. It elevates the story to the level of a Shakepearean tragedy, which it nearly is. Comic or less serious parts are written in regular speech to set them off, just as Shakespeare would.
And although this is called “A Future History Play,” it’s not. It’s generally the same sad story of the first Charles. Charles I ascended the throne, like Charles III, thinking that he had an active part to play as King. Parliament soon disabused him of this idea. Charles I thought that he could rule by his own conscience – in much the same way that Charles III here wants to use his advice to influence bills, especially this one which he thoroughly disapproves of. Charles I’s actions resulted in a revolution and the loss of his own head, but we’re saved from that when a solution is found to the impasse with Charles III. However, it does seem more than likely that there could have been a revolution. People all over Britain were protesting and with the extra armed guards protecting the palace and a tank pointed at the crowds, all it would have taken would have been an accident, an injury or a death and the entire British Monarchy might have fallen.
Although it deals with many of the “regular” problems of the Monarchy – Why does it exist? Do we need it anymore? Can family members (like Prince Harry) “leave” the family and expect to live as commoners? What is the limit on the power of the King/Queen? In fact, what powers does the King/Queen actually have? – light is shed on them from different angles. Family dynamics figure in strongly too.
It’s a great play for study. It would be good for serious book clubs. It’s also great for anyone who loves history, has grown up with the Royal Family and will be heart-broken when Elizabeth II dies.
P. S. A small disclaimer. Prince Charles visited the University of Chicago while I was there and I was one of the people against the rope as he passed. I got to shake his hand.
Queen Elizabeth II has died and her son Charles, after a life-time of waiting, is ready to ascend the throne. Or is he? He himself has doubts. Is he better as a family member who spends nearly all his time visiting people and dedicating things and so on? Or was he really meant to rule?
Almost immediately Charles begins to discover that he probably is not a Monarch. The first bill to pass the Commons and come to him is a law restricting the press. Charles does not agree with it and demands that Parliament revise it and consult him on the revisions. He won’t sign it otherwise. The Prime Minister is livid: that's NOT the way things are done. The King is a virtual rubber stamp. And besides, his mother never made a fuss, just signed everything that came to her regardless of her feelings. (We hear the plaintive cry, "Why can't you be more like your mother?" in his words.)
But Charles refuses. He interprets the Monarchy as an active role, someone who suggests, advises, gives opinions which Parliament takes into view when writing and passing laws.
Parliament and Charles come to an impasse: neither will budge and any further discussions only serve to make each one dig in deeper. Charles goes so far as to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. He even triples the ceremonial guards at the palace and places a tank on the grounds. The Prime Minister goes on TV and tries to convince the people that Charles doesn't understand Monarchy. And the people split: about half in support of the King and the other half in support of Parliament.
It's dangerous times and a revolution appears possible. For many years, the British people have been questioning the role of the Royal Family. What do they do that is so important that the people have to pay to support them? Is it time to give them the old “heave ho”?
Extremely good questions which are answered at the end of the play.
To me the most exciting part is that it's written in iambic pentameter - Shakespeare's language. First of all, it seems perfectly natural. You fall into the rhythm and almost don't realize because it’s modern English in an old form. It elevates the story to the level of a Shakepearean tragedy, which it nearly is. Comic or less serious parts are written in regular speech to set them off, just as Shakespeare would.
And although this is called “A Future History Play,” it’s not. It’s generally the same sad story of the first Charles. Charles I ascended the throne, like Charles III, thinking that he had an active part to play as King. Parliament soon disabused him of this idea. Charles I thought that he could rule by his own conscience – in much the same way that Charles III here wants to use his advice to influence bills, especially this one which he thoroughly disapproves of. Charles I’s actions resulted in a revolution and the loss of his own head, but we’re saved from that when a solution is found to the impasse with Charles III. However, it does seem more than likely that there could have been a revolution. People all over Britain were protesting and with the extra armed guards protecting the palace and a tank pointed at the crowds, all it would have taken would have been an accident, an injury or a death and the entire British Monarchy might have fallen.
Although it deals with many of the “regular” problems of the Monarchy – Why does it exist? Do we need it anymore? Can family members (like Prince Harry) “leave” the family and expect to live as commoners? What is the limit on the power of the King/Queen? In fact, what powers does the King/Queen actually have? – light is shed on them from different angles. Family dynamics figure in strongly too.
It’s a great play for study. It would be good for serious book clubs. It’s also great for anyone who loves history, has grown up with the Royal Family and will be heart-broken when Elizabeth II dies.
P. S. A small disclaimer. Prince Charles visited the University of Chicago while I was there and I was one of the people against the rope as he passed. I got to shake his hand.
July 13, 2015
From BBC radio 3 - Drama on 3:
After a lifetime of waiting, Charles ascends the throne. A future of power. But how to rule? Mike Bartlett's 'future history' play won the 2015 Olivier Award for Best New Play. The production, directed by Rupert Goold, premiered at the Almeida Theatre before moving to the West End in a co-production with Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions.
This "bracingly provocative and outrageously entertaining new play" (The Independent) explores the people underneath the crowns, the unwritten rules of our democracy, and the conscience of Britain's most famous family.
KING CHARLES III was first produced by the Almeida Theatre and subsequently co-produced at the Wyndham's Theatre in the West End of London by Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions in association with Lee Dean & Charles Diamond and Tulchin Bartner Productions. The sound designer for the theatre production was Paul Arditti.
After a lifetime of waiting, Charles ascends the throne. A future of power. But how to rule? Mike Bartlett's 'future history' play won the 2015 Olivier Award for Best New Play. The production, directed by Rupert Goold, premiered at the Almeida Theatre before moving to the West End in a co-production with Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions.
This "bracingly provocative and outrageously entertaining new play" (The Independent) explores the people underneath the crowns, the unwritten rules of our democracy, and the conscience of Britain's most famous family.
KING CHARLES III was first produced by the Almeida Theatre and subsequently co-produced at the Wyndham's Theatre in the West End of London by Sonia Friedman Productions and Stuart Thompson Productions in association with Lee Dean & Charles Diamond and Tulchin Bartner Productions. The sound designer for the theatre production was Paul Arditti.
August 16, 2014
There are a few moments where things are a little too broadly brushed and several moments that are meant, I think, to be seen onstage as opposed to just read on the page. But since I'm likely going to miss the celebrated Almeida production when it transfers to the West End - and since I can't really imagine this play succeeding at any major theaters in this country - the page will have to do. It's a thought-provoking play, a damn good one, and it simultaneously pays homage to the stylings and craft of those who've come before (Shakespeare especially) while also remaining vitally of-the-present-moment.
More at RB: http://ragingbiblioholism.com/2014/08...
(and go see it, Londoners! http://www.almeida.co.uk/event/kingch...)
More at RB: http://ragingbiblioholism.com/2014/08...
(and go see it, Londoners! http://www.almeida.co.uk/event/kingch...)
March 24, 2017
Read the script after having watched the play live at the Harmen Center for the Arts in Washington, DC. I wanted to read the words I’d heard in the performance which were absolutely wonderful. The author, Mike Bartlett, employs Shakespeare’s language, mixing prose and blank verse, and the results are to my ear stunning.
The play imagines what might happen when Elizabeth II dies, and her son Charles Windsor becomes King of England, Charles III. The cast includes people we’re all too familiar with - Camila, Duchess of Cornwall, William and Kate, Harry, William’s brother, and many of Shakespeare’s elements, including family infighting, betrayal, madness and even a ghost.
Do read the play, but if you get a chance to see a performance, do that as well.
The play imagines what might happen when Elizabeth II dies, and her son Charles Windsor becomes King of England, Charles III. The cast includes people we’re all too familiar with - Camila, Duchess of Cornwall, William and Kate, Harry, William’s brother, and many of Shakespeare’s elements, including family infighting, betrayal, madness and even a ghost.
Do read the play, but if you get a chance to see a performance, do that as well.
July 24, 2014
Neat, economical plotting and characterisation (tbh the 'characters' are very much blocked in from Daily Mail stereotypes) and wittily written: I enjoyed Bartlett's use of Shakespearian blank verse and other references (Diana appears as a Hamlet-style ghost) to undercut the present. The play addresses Britain's current 'freedom of the press' debate with Charles the unlikely defender of press freedom against the entire political and royal establishment, who feel it is much better to control the press and keep the boat steady. Searing cameo of Kate as a relentless social climber ruthlessly fixated on cementing her position.
October 7, 2023
I can't even find words to describe how fucking brilliant this play is!!!!! (Pardon my crass language but sometimes it's called for) Structured as a 5 act Shakespearean tragedy we get a possible view of what happened to the monarchy once Queen Elizabeth II passes away and the crown passes to Charles. At times funny, other times sad, more often than not deeply moving. A must read for everyone!!!!!!
October 11, 2014
saw the London production. One of my most memorable nights in a theater. Coming only a week after the Scotland vote the audience was very attuned to the constitutional questions at the heart of the play.
November 4, 2014
Excellent. Very believable story in which King Charles III (our current Prince of Wales ) won't sign a proposed law limiting press freedom in Britain, thus setting off a constitutional crisis. I would love to see this performed live.
March 18, 2017
Bartlett's blending of contemprory politics/culture with Shakespearean language/tropes makes for a completely surreal and engrossing experience. Something to love for Bardophiles, Anglophiles, and, perhaps most of all, students of political philosophy.
December 17, 2014
Excellent modern play written in blank verse. Definitely one of the best plays of this year.
July 12, 2017
I wish I could give it more than five stars.
November 27, 2018
This is such a strange, incredibly intelligent play!
February 6, 2022
FEBRUARY
20.
by Mike Bartlett (no photo)
Finish date: 04 February 2022
Genre: Play
Rating: A
Review:
NOTE: 70 years ago today....
Elizabeth II acceded to the throne at the age of 25 upon the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952, being proclaimed queen by her privy and executive councils shortly afterwards
Good news The play instantly feels different! It is written in Shakespearean form. Barlett uses in blank verse – also known as unrhymed iambic pentameter in common with many Shakespeare plays. This play follows Shakespeare classic 5 act structure …. and even with a ghost.
Good news Charles is a man who has waited all his life for a job – and then it goes horribly wrong! Great metaphor for Charles “…I’m like a book, stuck on the shelf, for years ignored and waiting to be judged….”. This play is not without controversy. For the stage version there were long conversations with lawyers. Even certain actors refusing to be involved because of how it might affect their future career.
Best scene: Charles is living in the 16th C. as a “Shakespearean King”…who thinks he has God given powers. “…Anointed not by man, but God, I don’t negotiate but issue commands.” Act 4 is the explosive showdown between Charles vs William.
Personal: There’s a lot to unpack in this play: royal family and Harry’s desire to “leave the firm” - power of `the Parliament and Prime Minister - privacy vs freedom of the press - the future of the monarchy.
There’s a reason this play is controversial….wow! I thought was going to read a pompous and pretentious play It turned out to be a doozy with a lot of meat on the bone. No wonder no Royals officially came to see the play in London.
The play premiered in London in 2014. BBC broadcasted a movie version in May 2017. It is on streaming...so try to find it. It was nominated for BAFTA's Best Single Drama and Best Leading Actor, Tim Pigott-Smith (1946-2017). Mike Bartlett portrays Charles as a Shakespearean king…with actual power” in the 21st C! In truth kingship in England is only symbolic.
PS: Next month Mike Bartlett's new play in Shakespearean form will open in London. It is about a power struggle...an ambitious man and asks the question: "Do we have a devil in all of us?." The new play is called "47th" ...about Trump!
20.
by Mike Bartlett (no photo)Finish date: 04 February 2022
Genre: Play
Rating: A
Review:
NOTE: 70 years ago today....
Elizabeth II acceded to the throne at the age of 25 upon the death of her father, George VI, on 6 February 1952, being proclaimed queen by her privy and executive councils shortly afterwards
Good news The play instantly feels different! It is written in Shakespearean form. Barlett uses in blank verse – also known as unrhymed iambic pentameter in common with many Shakespeare plays. This play follows Shakespeare classic 5 act structure …. and even with a ghost.
Good news Charles is a man who has waited all his life for a job – and then it goes horribly wrong! Great metaphor for Charles “…I’m like a book, stuck on the shelf, for years ignored and waiting to be judged….”. This play is not without controversy. For the stage version there were long conversations with lawyers. Even certain actors refusing to be involved because of how it might affect their future career.
Best scene: Charles is living in the 16th C. as a “Shakespearean King”…who thinks he has God given powers. “…Anointed not by man, but God, I don’t negotiate but issue commands.” Act 4 is the explosive showdown between Charles vs William.
Personal: There’s a lot to unpack in this play: royal family and Harry’s desire to “leave the firm” - power of `the Parliament and Prime Minister - privacy vs freedom of the press - the future of the monarchy.
There’s a reason this play is controversial….wow! I thought was going to read a pompous and pretentious play It turned out to be a doozy with a lot of meat on the bone. No wonder no Royals officially came to see the play in London.
The play premiered in London in 2014. BBC broadcasted a movie version in May 2017. It is on streaming...so try to find it. It was nominated for BAFTA's Best Single Drama and Best Leading Actor, Tim Pigott-Smith (1946-2017). Mike Bartlett portrays Charles as a Shakespearean king…with actual power” in the 21st C! In truth kingship in England is only symbolic.
PS: Next month Mike Bartlett's new play in Shakespearean form will open in London. It is about a power struggle...an ambitious man and asks the question: "Do we have a devil in all of us?." The new play is called "47th" ...about Trump!
September 20, 2020
I remember reading about this play when it premiered a few years ago and wrote it off as a gimmick.
While yes, there is a level of gimmick in using the actual Royal Family, the play is more profound than I expected.
I was riveted to this tale of power and intrigue in twenty-first century England. Written in blank verse, Bartlett gives the modern Royal Family a Shakespearean ethos, and while it isn’t always successful, the play does feel like something outside of modern theatre’s comfort zone. The political question at the center isn’t given enough room for debate – Bartlett might have been better served picking an issue that couldn’t have spawned a play on its own – which hinders the larger story arc, but overall, I enjoyed this one. Recommended.
ETA: The film adaptation (shown on PBS in the U.S.) kind of derailed my love of the play. The adaptation felt like what I had expected initially: a gimmick. The problems with the political issue are more noticeable on screen, and something about the cast didn’t click. Part of it is they were trying to play famous, living people without drifting into mimicry, but a lack of chemistry, especially between Harry and Jessica (who were also the two weakest links of the cast), was the bigger problem. Oliver Chris, who played William, and Charlotte Riley, who played Kate, were the strongest cast members and carried much of the story, and I’d love to see them do a project together that better used their talents.
Anyway. Maybe just read the play.
While yes, there is a level of gimmick in using the actual Royal Family, the play is more profound than I expected.
I was riveted to this tale of power and intrigue in twenty-first century England. Written in blank verse, Bartlett gives the modern Royal Family a Shakespearean ethos, and while it isn’t always successful, the play does feel like something outside of modern theatre’s comfort zone. The political question at the center isn’t given enough room for debate – Bartlett might have been better served picking an issue that couldn’t have spawned a play on its own – which hinders the larger story arc, but overall, I enjoyed this one. Recommended.
ETA: The film adaptation (shown on PBS in the U.S.) kind of derailed my love of the play. The adaptation felt like what I had expected initially: a gimmick. The problems with the political issue are more noticeable on screen, and something about the cast didn’t click. Part of it is they were trying to play famous, living people without drifting into mimicry, but a lack of chemistry, especially between Harry and Jessica (who were also the two weakest links of the cast), was the bigger problem. Oliver Chris, who played William, and Charlotte Riley, who played Kate, were the strongest cast members and carried much of the story, and I’d love to see them do a project together that better used their talents.
Anyway. Maybe just read the play.
August 8, 2021
Mike Bartlett has to take a bit of a punt at predicting some near-future history and did a fair job (excluding the Harry plot), but I didn’t buy the central idea of Charles making such a principal of extending the freedom of the press - I feel like there are other hills he might die on but not that one. Fun story though, and I enjoyed the Shakespearean flourish.
September 3, 2023
First performed and published in 2014, this play explores a humourous account of life for the Royals after the Queen is dead. Although quite different from the current reality, Bartlett identifies the tensions within the family and the increasing uncertainty of the power of the Crown. This is a fantastic play - I inhaled it.
May 29, 2017
So I am better Thoughtful Prince than King.
Potential holds appeal since in its castle walls
one is protected from teh awful shame
Of failure."
As Queen Elizabeth II enters her 91st year the future and what it holds for the British royal family weighs heavily on the minds of some. While the Queen is known for her restraint and quiet hand, her son is not. Charles is outspoken, a divorcee, known to write to government ministers with his thoughts on various subjects. While the Crown survives because of its non political nature, there's a worry that Charles could change that. He has said in interviews that he plans to speak his mind. Stepping into this unknown is King Charles III, a play about the distant future and an uncertain king.
The actions starts soon after the death of the Queen with Charles standing tentatively in his mother's shoes. Bartlett writes Charles as you would expect: eager, uncertain, brash. He’s written in a way that is both infuriating and sympathetic. The Prime Minister hands Charles a bill for royal assent that has already passed through both chambers of Parliament. The bill, drawn up in light of the phone hacking scandal, regulates the British press. Charles is perturbed by the notion that this will damage the free press and refuses to give his assent. His actions set off a constitutional crisis and unrest across the UK. Prince William and Kate, fearful for the future of the crown, stage an intervention that causes a rift in the family.
"She lost an Empire, granted that the law
On homosexuality be changed
She oversaw the alteration from
The unions, mines and factories that stood
For generations to a world
That, Thaterated, Reganised, did place
The profit higher value than the pride
Belonging to the man who travels day
By day upon the Clapham omnibus.
And through all this, when laws arrived from those
Prime Ministers she hated, doing things
Of which I'm sure she never would approve
She still did sign, respected all the votes
Empowering those elect to make the law
She always signed. She always gave assent."
The Shakespearean influences are everywhere.Every character speaks in blank verse. Charles monologues to the audience. Both Charles and William are visited by a ghost that influences their decisions. Kate Middleton is a soft Lady Macbeth, quietly scheming to make her husband act. Mr Stevens, the leader of the opposition, a devious Iago who plants seeds of thought in Charles' mind. Prince Harry falls for a woman he shouldn't and wrestles with the decision of what to do until the very end.
Much has been made of Kate Middleton's character. She’s certainly more conniving than the real Kate Middleton, whispering in William's ear to get rid of his father. She's also painted a shrewder political operator that her husband; the only one with the wit to realise the danger Charles poses to the country. It’s thanks to Kate’s actions that the unrest is stopped.
For people with a fascination with British constitutional law (they exist. hi), Bartlett does a wonderful job of wrestling with the question of what a modern monarchy should be. Mr Stevens tells the King that he doubts a Nazi party would ever flourish in the UK because the Monarch would refuse assent. Charles' actions in refusing assent are grounded in legal principles and the bill he struggles to sign is one the audience can imagine in light of the Leveson Inquiry. Charles' concerns for the freedom of the press are right but his actions, refusing his assent like a despot king, are not.
The Queen is held up as an example of how a modern monarch should behave: a constant steady hand in turbulent times, non political and distant. One of Charles' final lines, however, is thought provoking and almost scathing. In its brilliance its hard to pin down as either republican or royalist.
"So there, it's done, the King is at an end.
I will retreat to the bed, and when I wake
To a new dawn, I'll simply be an old
Forgotten gardener, who potters round
And talks to plants and chuckles to himself
Whilst far away the King and Queen do rule
Over a golden age of monarchy
That bothers no one, does no good, and is
A pretty plastic picture with no meaning."
This play is so much more than just an imaginary vision of the future. This is a thoughtful, brilliant meditation on the Monarchy and the British Constitution. It's as much fun to read as it is to watch.
Potential holds appeal since in its castle walls
one is protected from teh awful shame
Of failure."
As Queen Elizabeth II enters her 91st year the future and what it holds for the British royal family weighs heavily on the minds of some. While the Queen is known for her restraint and quiet hand, her son is not. Charles is outspoken, a divorcee, known to write to government ministers with his thoughts on various subjects. While the Crown survives because of its non political nature, there's a worry that Charles could change that. He has said in interviews that he plans to speak his mind. Stepping into this unknown is King Charles III, a play about the distant future and an uncertain king.
The actions starts soon after the death of the Queen with Charles standing tentatively in his mother's shoes. Bartlett writes Charles as you would expect: eager, uncertain, brash. He’s written in a way that is both infuriating and sympathetic. The Prime Minister hands Charles a bill for royal assent that has already passed through both chambers of Parliament. The bill, drawn up in light of the phone hacking scandal, regulates the British press. Charles is perturbed by the notion that this will damage the free press and refuses to give his assent. His actions set off a constitutional crisis and unrest across the UK. Prince William and Kate, fearful for the future of the crown, stage an intervention that causes a rift in the family.
"She lost an Empire, granted that the law
On homosexuality be changed
She oversaw the alteration from
The unions, mines and factories that stood
For generations to a world
That, Thaterated, Reganised, did place
The profit higher value than the pride
Belonging to the man who travels day
By day upon the Clapham omnibus.
And through all this, when laws arrived from those
Prime Ministers she hated, doing things
Of which I'm sure she never would approve
She still did sign, respected all the votes
Empowering those elect to make the law
She always signed. She always gave assent."
The Shakespearean influences are everywhere.Every character speaks in blank verse. Charles monologues to the audience. Both Charles and William are visited by a ghost that influences their decisions. Kate Middleton is a soft Lady Macbeth, quietly scheming to make her husband act. Mr Stevens, the leader of the opposition, a devious Iago who plants seeds of thought in Charles' mind. Prince Harry falls for a woman he shouldn't and wrestles with the decision of what to do until the very end.
Much has been made of Kate Middleton's character. She’s certainly more conniving than the real Kate Middleton, whispering in William's ear to get rid of his father. She's also painted a shrewder political operator that her husband; the only one with the wit to realise the danger Charles poses to the country. It’s thanks to Kate’s actions that the unrest is stopped.
For people with a fascination with British constitutional law (they exist. hi), Bartlett does a wonderful job of wrestling with the question of what a modern monarchy should be. Mr Stevens tells the King that he doubts a Nazi party would ever flourish in the UK because the Monarch would refuse assent. Charles' actions in refusing assent are grounded in legal principles and the bill he struggles to sign is one the audience can imagine in light of the Leveson Inquiry. Charles' concerns for the freedom of the press are right but his actions, refusing his assent like a despot king, are not.
The Queen is held up as an example of how a modern monarch should behave: a constant steady hand in turbulent times, non political and distant. One of Charles' final lines, however, is thought provoking and almost scathing. In its brilliance its hard to pin down as either republican or royalist.
"So there, it's done, the King is at an end.
I will retreat to the bed, and when I wake
To a new dawn, I'll simply be an old
Forgotten gardener, who potters round
And talks to plants and chuckles to himself
Whilst far away the King and Queen do rule
Over a golden age of monarchy
That bothers no one, does no good, and is
A pretty plastic picture with no meaning."
This play is so much more than just an imaginary vision of the future. This is a thoughtful, brilliant meditation on the Monarchy and the British Constitution. It's as much fun to read as it is to watch.
March 10, 2018
Setting: London, UK in the future; around 2022
Genre: Drama, Future History Length: 5 Act; 97 pgs.; 2hr 45 min Cast Size: 16M, 7W (flex.)
Basis: Original Adaptations: BCC Radio (Jul. ’15), BBC/PBS TV film (May ’17)
Productions: West End (Sept. ’14- Jan ’15), UK tour, Broadway (Nov ’15 – Jan ’16), D.C. (Feb. ’17)
Accolades: Critic’s Circle Best New Play, Olivier Best New Play, Drama Desk nom, Tony nom.
Background
Writing
Positive
- Love Bartlett’s choice to write Harry’s dialogue to symbolize his disconnection from the family as Shakes would do to differentiate the lower and upper classes
- Shakespearean ethos: blank verse with rhyming couplets, prose, soliloquies/monologue, diction (babe for baby, cot for bed, etc.), the use of a ghost (Diana, really cool to see), metaphors (coronation to theatre, Charles to an old book), even a Lady Macbeth character (Kate)
- Good use of modern language in diction to break it up, even within blank verse (Dad, Alright)
- The relevancy of the Parliament bill
- Hesitant at first I wouldn’t get much out of this due to unfamiliarity of the central theme/main conflict pertaining to the rift between the monarchy and Parliament, but enough background info is provided that prior knowledge isn’t necessary (though sure British audiences will appreciate these aspects much more)
Negative
- Not really anything, except for the fact maybe we could’ve seen more of Jess to make her relationship with Prince Harry and that arc to be a little more developed
Misc. Comments
- Funny how though written in 2014, play unintentionally foreshadows Harry’s romantic life and even more so the struggles Markle/Jess shared with tabloids and social media
- Guess we are supposed to assume Phillip has passed, but he’s not even mention (could’ve missed it)
- Since written in 2014, edits must’ve been made to include references to Charlotte since she was born in 2015.
- Would love to know Bartlett’s mindset of the PM – why did he use a fictional person? How did he
- Wished I knew more about the Royal Family to know if little nuances were accurate (like Camilla avoiding the mention of Wales)
- Didn’t know shots were fired on Queen Elizabeth II in real life!
- Didn’t know the monarchy could recall an election or approved the passing of laws
- Couldn’t help but notice similarities to The Crown (William/Harry parallel Elizabeth/Margaret), Charles/Elizabeth parallel of struggling with mourning a loss and gaining a new title
Other
Casting/Acting
- Specific casting needed for principal roles who are popular, recognizable public figures (straying too far could be distracting to audience); supporting roles no real specific casting needed
- British accents absolutely required
- Good balance of male/female roles, not so much for age requirements though – need to stick to the script there
- Actors should have decent grasp on delivering prose
Direction
- Aside from Bartlett giving the setting, he provides little to no scene description or stage directions which allows for endless possibilities
- Need to have good grasp on prose
Production
- Could make it as elaborate or minimal as desired so cost would vary
- Could be done in any size performance space
Audience
- Assume even American audiences would appreciate this seeing as we’re obsessed with the royals as well – just may not get some of the nuances
What I Learned
- On using real people: okay to take artistic license when forming the characters
- On future history: okay to include fictional people as well
- Okay to provide little to no scene description/stage directions
All in All
- The ending left me begging for a sequel - how cool and how many people would love to see a William and Kate play!?
- Really am intrigued by the “future history” genre now, hope that sparks more projects in that style (maybe even American?) – I’d love to write one
- Wondered how the modern-day prose would work out going in but turned out to exceed my expectations
Genre: Drama, Future History Length: 5 Act; 97 pgs.; 2hr 45 min Cast Size: 16M, 7W (flex.)
Basis: Original Adaptations: BCC Radio (Jul. ’15), BBC/PBS TV film (May ’17)
Productions: West End (Sept. ’14- Jan ’15), UK tour, Broadway (Nov ’15 – Jan ’16), D.C. (Feb. ’17)
Accolades: Critic’s Circle Best New Play, Olivier Best New Play, Drama Desk nom, Tony nom.
Background
Writing
Positive
- Love Bartlett’s choice to write Harry’s dialogue to symbolize his disconnection from the family as Shakes would do to differentiate the lower and upper classes
- Shakespearean ethos: blank verse with rhyming couplets, prose, soliloquies/monologue, diction (babe for baby, cot for bed, etc.), the use of a ghost (Diana, really cool to see), metaphors (coronation to theatre, Charles to an old book), even a Lady Macbeth character (Kate)
- Good use of modern language in diction to break it up, even within blank verse (Dad, Alright)
- The relevancy of the Parliament bill
- Hesitant at first I wouldn’t get much out of this due to unfamiliarity of the central theme/main conflict pertaining to the rift between the monarchy and Parliament, but enough background info is provided that prior knowledge isn’t necessary (though sure British audiences will appreciate these aspects much more)
Negative
- Not really anything, except for the fact maybe we could’ve seen more of Jess to make her relationship with Prince Harry and that arc to be a little more developed
Misc. Comments
- Funny how though written in 2014, play unintentionally foreshadows Harry’s romantic life and even more so the struggles Markle/Jess shared with tabloids and social media
- Guess we are supposed to assume Phillip has passed, but he’s not even mention (could’ve missed it)
- Since written in 2014, edits must’ve been made to include references to Charlotte since she was born in 2015.
- Would love to know Bartlett’s mindset of the PM – why did he use a fictional person? How did he
- Wished I knew more about the Royal Family to know if little nuances were accurate (like Camilla avoiding the mention of Wales)
- Didn’t know shots were fired on Queen Elizabeth II in real life!
- Didn’t know the monarchy could recall an election or approved the passing of laws
- Couldn’t help but notice similarities to The Crown (William/Harry parallel Elizabeth/Margaret), Charles/Elizabeth parallel of struggling with mourning a loss and gaining a new title
Other
Casting/Acting
- Specific casting needed for principal roles who are popular, recognizable public figures (straying too far could be distracting to audience); supporting roles no real specific casting needed
- British accents absolutely required
- Good balance of male/female roles, not so much for age requirements though – need to stick to the script there
- Actors should have decent grasp on delivering prose
Direction
- Aside from Bartlett giving the setting, he provides little to no scene description or stage directions which allows for endless possibilities
- Need to have good grasp on prose
Production
- Could make it as elaborate or minimal as desired so cost would vary
- Could be done in any size performance space
Audience
- Assume even American audiences would appreciate this seeing as we’re obsessed with the royals as well – just may not get some of the nuances
What I Learned
- On using real people: okay to take artistic license when forming the characters
- On future history: okay to include fictional people as well
- Okay to provide little to no scene description/stage directions
All in All
- The ending left me begging for a sequel - how cool and how many people would love to see a William and Kate play!?
- Really am intrigued by the “future history” genre now, hope that sparks more projects in that style (maybe even American?) – I’d love to write one
- Wondered how the modern-day prose would work out going in but turned out to exceed my expectations
October 25, 2017
Sujuvasti dialogin kautta etenevä näytelmä, jossa ei mitään ylimääräistä. Vähän shakespearemainen kielentuntu tai -sointi, mutta nykyaikaisemmalla sanastolla. Silti puuttui kaunokielisyys tai rikaskielisyys, mitä Shakespearen teksti parhaimmillaan on.
Näytelmä sijoittuu tulevaisuuteen, aikaan jolloin kuningatar Elisabet II on kuollut ja Charlesista on tullut kuningas. Hän tuntuu kuitenkin olevan hieman hukassa ja päätyy nokkapokkaan parlamentin kanssa, sillä jo ennen kruunajaisiaan ei suostu allekirjoittamaan toisin sanoen vahvistamaan tai hyväksymään parlamentin lakipäätöstä lehdistön vapauden kaventamisesta. Kuningas Charles III kokee, että hänellä tulee olla valtaa estää lakeja, jotka hänen mielestään eivät ole kansalle edullisia. Sinänsä kiinnostavaa, että laki olisi eduksi kuningashuoneelle, jolla on oma ikävä historiansa erityiseti keltaisen lehdistön kanssa. En halua spoiltata lopetusta, joten en kerro miten kuninkaan käy. Joka tapauksessa valtio joutuu kriisiin, joka purkautuu väkivaltana ja perustuslaki nykyisellään parlamentaarisena monarkiana on uhan alla.
Näytelmässä henkilöhahmoina prinssi Charlesin lisäksi William, Kate, Harry ja Camilla, jotka kenties toistavat hieman heistä annettua julkista kuvaa, mutta en tästä ole ihan varma.
Näytelmä herätti minussa pohdintoja monarkian asemasta nykyisessä maailmanmenossa. Mihin monarkioita tarvitaan. Itselleni tuo konsepti on vieras, mutta en ole ottanut siihen kantaa Yhdistyneitten kuningaskuntien osalta, koska se ei ole minun asiani. Silti ihmettelen edelleen. Näytelmä ei anna monarkiasta täysin nurjaa kuvaa vaan tuo esille yksilön, vanhemmuuden, lapsena olemisen ja monarkisen velvollisuuksien ristiriitoja varsin tehokkaasti esille.
Näytelmä sijoittuu tulevaisuuteen, aikaan jolloin kuningatar Elisabet II on kuollut ja Charlesista on tullut kuningas. Hän tuntuu kuitenkin olevan hieman hukassa ja päätyy nokkapokkaan parlamentin kanssa, sillä jo ennen kruunajaisiaan ei suostu allekirjoittamaan toisin sanoen vahvistamaan tai hyväksymään parlamentin lakipäätöstä lehdistön vapauden kaventamisesta. Kuningas Charles III kokee, että hänellä tulee olla valtaa estää lakeja, jotka hänen mielestään eivät ole kansalle edullisia. Sinänsä kiinnostavaa, että laki olisi eduksi kuningashuoneelle, jolla on oma ikävä historiansa erityiseti keltaisen lehdistön kanssa. En halua spoiltata lopetusta, joten en kerro miten kuninkaan käy. Joka tapauksessa valtio joutuu kriisiin, joka purkautuu väkivaltana ja perustuslaki nykyisellään parlamentaarisena monarkiana on uhan alla.
Näytelmässä henkilöhahmoina prinssi Charlesin lisäksi William, Kate, Harry ja Camilla, jotka kenties toistavat hieman heistä annettua julkista kuvaa, mutta en tästä ole ihan varma.
Näytelmä herätti minussa pohdintoja monarkian asemasta nykyisessä maailmanmenossa. Mihin monarkioita tarvitaan. Itselleni tuo konsepti on vieras, mutta en ole ottanut siihen kantaa Yhdistyneitten kuningaskuntien osalta, koska se ei ole minun asiani. Silti ihmettelen edelleen. Näytelmä ei anna monarkiasta täysin nurjaa kuvaa vaan tuo esille yksilön, vanhemmuuden, lapsena olemisen ja monarkisen velvollisuuksien ristiriitoja varsin tehokkaasti esille.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 142 reviews