King Charles III

This is the script of Mike Bartlett's "King Charles III", subtitled " A Future History Play." Written in blank verse, the play has a Shakespearean tone which well befits the title I chose for my review. In less than two hours, Mike Bartlett's play brilliantly depicts not only the issues facing a monarch and his family ruling a twenty-first century democratic nation, but many of the challenges facing that nation as well.It is the near future. Queen Elizabeth II has died after a reign so lengthy that few of her subjects can recall a time when she was not their Head of State. The new King Charles III, a man in his seventies who has spent his entire life waiting for this moment, must now decide what he is to make of his new status. At his side are his wife Camilla, his son and heir William with his wife Kate, and his younger son Harry.It is a momentous time for the new King and his nation. The Prime Minister, Mr. Evans, has carefully shepherded through the House of Commons a new law intended to crack down on the press and put a stop to "irresponsible reporting." Charles III and many others fear this is a giant step on the road to tyranny.How should the King respond? Does he have an active role to play, or is he merely a decorative place-holder? What should he do if he opposes a measure passed by the elected Government of the nation? And if he does take action in opposition, what will be the response of that elected Government? These are questions which have been asked many times over several centuries, but so far as the public knows (since conversations between Monarch and Minister are always confidential) there has never been an open break between Buckingham Palace and Downing Street.This is the meat of the play, and Bartlett's superb script does it full justice. The new King feeling his way through unfamiliar territory, the brash Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and the roles played by the new Queen and the new Prince and Princess of Wales are all beautifully depicted. Additionally there is the literally haunting presence of the ghost of the late Diana. Perhaps the best character is that of Prince Harry, reduced to a minor role in the new order but vigorously determined to be independent. It is through him that the audience has a conduit to the British population: modern, multi-cultural, uneasy with the concept of hereditary monarchy yet reluctant to see it discarded.This is a truly remarkable play that should be long remembered. Perhaps the closest comparison to it in recent times is "To Play the King," a BBC production from the mid-nineties starring Ian Richardson and Michael Kitchen as a domineering Prime Minister and the well-meaning King who opposes his Government's policies.

This was an remarkable, interesting movie, andI understand that is is an even more interesting stage play . I bought the book hoping is would be the script of the original West End stage version so that I could compare it to the film - unfortunately this is the script of the film. Be aware, if you want the original play script, you'll have to look elsewhere.That being said, the movie is a fascinating, well done concept. Like Shakespeare, it may have little to do with the actual family in question, but it's a brilliant meditation on one of the peculiarities of the British government.

No, it's not a perfectly accurate representation of the royal family. If you are looking for that, don't read it. It is a PLAY, quite a well-written one at that, and its main purpose is to represent IDEAS in the form of art. You should not read this as a textbook on the royal family, any more than you should read Shakespeare's Richard III as a textbook on Richard III. I repeat, since somefolk seem confused on this point, it is a PLAY.

Extremely disappointing. The play started off with a premise that was interesting - a majority government passes an act basically doing away with freedom of the press. In Canada the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would require the courts to declare the legislation void; pursuant to the Bill of Rights, the same thing would happen in the U.S. However, in the U.K. of Charles III the only institution standing in the way of this egregious attack on a basic freedom is the King, who refuses to sign this iniquitous legislation.It seems to me that this would lead to the King being the hero of the play - and being supported by the media and the subjects whose rights he is protecting. But no, the playwright paints him as the villain of the play and has him forced to abdicate in favour of his treacherous son.Accordingly the play misses - abdicates? - its responsibility to deal in an intelligent fashion with the very issue that it - apparently inadvertently - seems to raise.In addition the playwright puts these characters in a situation where one would expect them to be deeply conflicted, but then makes them colourless, one dimensional, and boring. This may work for Ben Jonson, whose characters represent their "humours", but of course Jonson wrote comedies and this is an effective technique in comedy.

A rapid read of the staging of this British play. Like a polite "Game of Thrones", Charles is, well, Charles - opinionated, stubborn, easily mislead, nothing like his mother. And apparently didn't learn anything in the years he was waiting for the crown. William, Kate, Harry, the ghost of Diana, the PM and the Opposition have other agendas. It's difficult to write a review without giving anything away, but it's worth the read...

An incredible literary achievement !! A modern day Shakespearean play with all of the complex nuances, sub-plots and intrigues. Really good stuff and the iambic pentameter writing style is amazing!!

Next best thing to seeing the play is reading it. Enjoyed this speculative look at the next transition of the British monarchy that might come to pass in my lifetime.Also enjoyed prompt service on a newly published UK title to feed my curiosity. Thank you, Wordery USA.

Much more thought provoking than I thoughtMonarchy in 21st century is debated & explored . What is the value of it in today's' Britain . The Harry subplot was a bit of a stretch , I would really likeTo see it performed.

I saw this on TV, magnificently performed and thought it interesting enough to want to read the original. Extremely rewarding, though the TV cuts are mostly to its advantage. The use of blank verse is extremely effective (if not quite Shakespearean in range, depth and variety) and the play deals with important issues rather than royal family gossip. I found it gripping both emotionally and intellectually.

An incredible play done in a classical style that examines the modern state of the monarchy. Absolutely phenomenal and highly recommended

Saw the tv version, wanted to read play. I like it because of the Shakespearean language and style. Good attempt to do something modern in a Shakespeare way. There are some flaws and sections which

great item, thanks a lot

Excellent quality and prompt delivery.