King Charles III

Both DH - initially a reluctant viewer - and I thought it excellent. Started it on iPlayer at a dull moment yesterday teatime and it captivated us for the full 90 minutes. Tremendous acting, thought-proving issues and the iambic pentameter dialogue had great beauty in many places. The dilemmas of power and freedom, as someone's said above, really go beyond this particular royal family and echo Shakespearean themes. Do watch it while it's still around.

Nelliemoser The play is speculative and just poses some questions. Although it could be interpreted by some as characterising Charles as some sort of fighter for freedom of information, I'm not sure that in real life such a characterisation can be supported.

Charles has definitely not been a champion of openness, at least not where his own behaviour is concerned. Over as ten year period, his legal representatives fought the Guardian tooth and nail, through several Court hearings and appeals, to keep secret letters written by Charles to various members of the then government, including Blair.

The Guardian editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger, said: “We fought this case because we believed – and the most senior judges in the country agreed – that the royal family should operate to the same degrees of transparency as anyone else trying to make their influence felt in public life. The attorney general, in trying to block the letters, said their contents could ‘seriously damage’ perceptions of the prince’s political neutrality. (!)

Michael Meacher, a former Labour environment secretary who received private letters from Charles about policy, called for a new system of transparency around his correspondence with ministers when he becomes king to “remove public suspicion from the process”..... “At least we would know he [Charles] has been giving his opinions and, some would say, lobbying ministers.”

What I think is really concerning is that since the original request to see Charles’s letters, the government tightened up the Freedom of Information Act to provide an “absolute exemption” on all requests relating to the Queen and the heir to the throne. That means such applications are now automatically rejected. So this appears to mean that anyone in the royal family can, in effect, seek to influjence governments on any number of issues without the voting public having any idea that this is happening.

I don't think it was appropriate ie it is about our current Royal Family albeit in the future, but I did enjoy the blank verse aspect of it. It was great to see a modern play using this medium.

What I took from the play was that Charles was always trying to be deeply moral. The P.M. character tried to sell him the Bill by citing all his trials with the press. However, Charles felt that the censorship was wrong despite his history with the newspapers. I felt that this was reiterated by his attempts to help Harry. Charles wanted him to be happy and extended his help....it was William who called a halt to the romance. So in all it was a sympathetic portrayal (whether that's right or wrong is another matter) of Charles. He was trying to be a king and retain his deeply held moral beliefs. In all, its a work of fiction but I do not think it was unkind.

Finished watching this last night. Outstanding. So wished I had seen the stage play. The writing was brilliant, the characters well formed and the storyline had integrity.

The synopsis of this play is this. From Wikipedia.

"Charles and his family gather following the funeral of Queen Elizabeth II. Charles, as the new king, then holds his first weekly audience with the Prime Minister. They discuss a new bill for statutory regulation of the press, which has passed the House of Commons and the House of Lords and awaits only Charles' royal assent to become law."

Charles is concerned that the law restricts freedom of the press too much, and would allow governments to censor the news and prevent legitimate uncovering of abuse of power by the government.

He asks the PM for alterations to the bill, but the PM refuses. The two men spar, as the Leader of the Opposition arrives for a weekly meeting with Charles, an innovation the new king has introduced. The Leader of the Opposition expresses his own doubts on the bill, but he sees little alternative but for Charles to sign...

Charles is actually acting in defence of freedom of speech and the press. Which has to be the right thing to do. He was acting in the best interests of the nation. So he is a goody in this situation.
That is the important thing to remember in the context. Others are just working after their own interests.

I just enjoyed the play, which is what I thought it was supposed to be. Thought the acting was superb. Know nothing really about the royal family, except what I read, so don't feel that I can comment on the 'reality' of it. Just a good hour and half viewing for me.

Charles is known to have interfered in government decisions and so the main dilemma portrayed in the play was a real one and an important one.

How people felt about the play is likely to depend to some extent on their own personal opinions regarding the role of the monarchy and the character of Charles. He could be seen as a courageous man, unwilling to go along with the usual rubber-stamping of proposals that he felt were dangerous because they were a threat to openess and the so-called freedom of the press.

I personally find that a rather unrealistic take on Charles's character, given his own efforts to keep secret his actions in trying to influence government decisions.

Alternatively, he could be seen as a deluded man who is under the impression that his role is more than a ceremonial one.

I think the play was interesting in that it posed the question as to whether, in an age where we have a parliamentary process, there is any point to maintaining a monarch whose only purpose is to rubber stamp policies.

As in any play based on real people, there was speculation as to the various characters' motives but no doubt the same was true of The Crown. I don't think a play has a duty to "show Elizabeth [or the royal family in general] in a more sympathetic way". That is what happens day in and day out on our TV screens so, to me at least, this was a play that addressed some "what if" issues that are rarely looked at.

Gosh I haven't watched it ....but poor sods , listening to this lot of gossip 'she did this he did that' Does it really matter ? They seem pretty happy together who cares who chased who and why, is it any if our business
Do writers have to get permission to write fiction about living people ? It all sounds really damaging as so many people believe every thing they read or see as gospel

Does Charles pour his own tea?

BTW Paw and I met at St Andrews too.
MawBroon [deep curtsey] does that make you a Princess too?

Charles poured tea from a pot into a cup...no tea strainer, surely he doesn't use teabags? I would think he uses only decent fresh leaf tea ( as do I)
GillT57 perhaps Camilla likes to read the tea leaves?

Yes Deedaa I agree

they met AT St Andrew after she changed not just the university but her course so she could be on the same one he was on....it was all over the Scottish news back in the early noughties .It was quite obviously an attempt by her mother to secure a "good" match for her
That's odd, it was reported that it was William who changed his course at university

How is it obviously her mother? What is so obvious ? You are claiming Scotland news reported this ? Strange nothing was said on the news in England or Wales .

PaddyAnn "common knowledge"! What the hell is "common knowledge"?
That just sounds like totally unverifiable tittle tattle to me. There is almost certainly no real evidence of any motive.

I really enjoyed it. More than I thought I would. This play was not essentially about the Windsors at all.

It was about most of the same themes that run through so much of his other dramas and tragedies.
Making the play seem like a Shakespearean drama by using the "iambic pentameter" style of dialogue that was used in most of his plays really worked as it gave the play context.
This really showed it as the timeless story it was. It echoed a lot of the themes in so many of the other Shakespearean plays. Power grabbing, old age, a few ghosts.

Not a royalist but can't be bothered with royal tittle-tattle! Does anyone really care?
DM......'nuff said!

they met AT St Andrew after she changed not just the university but her course so she could be on the same one he was on....it was all over the Scottish news back in the early noughties .It was quite obviously an attempt by her mother to secure a "good" match for her .

Seems thst allegation was from a book written by the Royal corespondent of --------The Daily Mail !

So who informed the public Mrs Middleton gave her daughter instructions on how to catch his eye? I think that is a most unkind thing to say , more so because it could be a great big porkie

common knowledge mawbroon when it was announced William was going to St Andrews her mother arranged for her place at another university to be cancelled and enrolled her at St Andrews ,apparently with instructions on how to catch his eye...remember the see through dress at the St Andrews fashion show? Shades of Diana there !

Well St A was my first choice and Edinburgh second.
(I know there are 3 St A graduates on GN.
Wonder if any uni can claim more).
Sorry - nonsequitur!

Apparently she had been accepted at Edinburgh, and accepted her place, then cancelled it and applied to St Andrews. She and William had met by then.

Theere could have been any reason for this, not necessarily following William. And he wasn't exactly running away from her, was he? He could have persuaded her? Or avoided her?

As they say, a man chases a girl until she catches him.

Switched from where to go to St A?

What makes you say Kate changed university so that she could "bag" William, paddyann
It's that sort of sniping that could turn me into a royalist.
BTW Paw and I met at St Andrews too.

I really enjoyed it. There's not many dramas that really get me interested but this did. The theatrical style added to it. I especially liked Charles and William.