The ongoing real-life drama of “Prince Harry: The Prisoner of Markle” brought to mind the character Prince Harry in Mike Bartlett’s fascinating stage show some five years back, “King Charles III“, that speculated on the future of the monarchy after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. The show’s Harry is portrayed as uncomfortable with his royal role and willing at one point to give it all up, finding comfort in the arms of a fun-loving working-class woman. That notion has proved amazingly prescient in light of current events. I thought at the time that “history might make this [show] un-revivable”, but it now seems to be playing out in real time. This may put paid to the idea that God doesn’t write a good second act. It remains to be seen how this develops (the drama offers a hopeful ending), but I figured it was a good opportunity to look back at this remarkable piece. I wish New York and Tokyo could do political drama this well.

—————————————————————-

• King Charles III, 11/3/14 (Mon), West End

King Charles III imagines the reign of the current Prince Charles after the death of his mother – rather tasteless since she’s very much alive, but I wasn’t going to miss it. It opens with a distraught Charles attending the funeral. Though the coronation is months away, he has instantly become king with his mom’s passing, and is soon confronted with controversy when he is asked to sign a privacy bill that he sees as a threat to the right of a free press. The monarch’s approval is by tradition a formality, but the king, driven by his conscience, unexpectedly refuses to go along, triggering a constitutional crisis. The prime minister reminds him threateningly that the king rules at the prerogative of the people, but the king stubbornly clings to his cause and uses his formal power to dissolve Parliament and (in a dramatic Act 1 closer) force an election. The opposition leader curiously deceives him even though Charles supports his cause, and eventually, with the monarchy at stake, William betrays his dad and forces him to abdicate.

The story seems far-fetched in real life but entirely plausible as drama, and was extremely interesting not only as a study of a monarch’s role in democracy but more broadly as the price of his blind More-like adherence to principle (shades of the Tudor shows on my last trip to London). The audience had fun identifying the real-life characters and their various traits. It presents a troubled Harry as wanting out of the royal life when he gets involved with a rowdy young girl (but back in when push comes to shove), Kate as scheming and ambitious, William as level-headed and no-nonsense, Camilla as loyal to her husband. Diana even makes an appearance as a fleeting ghost, when, troublemaker beyond the grave, she encourages both her ex-husband and elder son to pursue their conflicting goals. Charles’ portrait is surprisingly sympathetic in showing a principled man whose tragic flaw is going too far for his beliefs. The highly praised lead was unfortunately out but the understudy couldn’t have been better. Harry, the girl and the prime minister were also very good in an overall strong cast. The set was minimal, with desk and chairs moved onto a raised platform in the middle when needed. The script was delivered in blank verse as a hip Shakespearean history play, which I’m not sure was necessary, though the rhyming couplets at scene-ends were a nice touch. History might make this un-revivable, but it’s an enjoyable exercise in speculation.