Charles III

I went to see Charles III. I have to admit I was initially pretty apprehensive, but I went with Charlie and figured it would at least be an interesting excursion. Not least because I was always brought up to be a staunch royalist. So you can imagine my concern about such a 'future play' which opens with the death of our glorious monarch. I will say right now that I love QE2. She's spectacular. I have always liked her, and I recall vividly thinking my Grandmother was the Queen when I was a lot smaller than I am now.

I still wonder. It could be a serously well kept Hannah Montana-esque secret... Or not....

Anyway, back to the play. Of course I was late having wolfed down crispy duck, cocktails, and shooters in Jewel Bar with a couple of friends I hadn't seen in months. So I got to the Almeida Theatre with blisters and a bit hot and bothered. Not helping the dread. And there we sat with our trademark large G&Ts whilst we waited for the production to start. And as I leaned over to impart some kind of wisdom, the lights dimmed and we were plunged into a strange scene. Hooded/cloaked figures in black with candles entered onto the stage singing an interesting composition using Requiem text. The music had me hooked, although usually I'd expect to regard it as a little predictable - music snob that I am. It was a sort of mashup of the Allegretto from Karl Jenkins' Palladio for Strings, Enya's Tempus Fugit (or perhaps just Enya in general!), and your archetypal English plainchant. Refreshingly not in unison, I very much enjoyed it. One chap had such a low voice that I may have let out a small chuckle to myself.

Eventually this scene cleared to a reception where 'Prince Charles' was getting to grips with the idea of being King. 'William and Kate' were suitably polite, 'Harry' made a brief appearance before announcing he was going out - one can only presume to Raffles...! 'Camilla' was abrasive, which certainly suited the ideas at work. The Prime MInister looked a little like Irwin from the History Boys Film but more attractive - the same mildly apologetic face that either feels socially awkward or just pooed a little in his Calvin Kleins.

Allow me at this point to pause and say that for those of you with tickets or still hoping to catch the production (you never know whether it will get picked up for somewhere else - although Almeida was perfect atmospherically due to its intimacy so they would have to be careful where they staged it beyond Islington), there will be some spoilers from here on. So let me say to those of you who will stop reading, go with an open mind. Allow yourself to be taken to a place where you ponder the situation put before you and how you would see the various predicaments. Question the values of yourself, but also question the values of all around you. What do we care about as a nation? What is the significance of having a Royal Family?

------------------------

So now SPOILERS AHEAD ...

Harry meets this wayward chick who goes to Art School. Definitely no Cressida or Chelsy and definitely a predictable piece of scripting for this concept piece. It later turns out that this freespirit 'Jess' has had a few cheeky pictures taken of her by an ex.

The argument at the heart of this play is really natonal values. The Prime Minister brings a bill for Royal Assent that would hush up the press a little. Allow celebrities and nobodies alike the right to privacy. And in a community that is currently dealing with the Leveson Inquiry and the whole sorry hacking affair, it's a very important thing to consider. The press are all too eager to grab a piece of news in their mouths and shake it like a labrador with his soft mouth around the neck of a pheasant. But do we risk exposing national secrets, tricks of the trade that we can't afford to give up. I've always wondered how far is too far.

And on that topic we seemed perfectly happy to have pictures of Harry naked - and not Harry Styles. Yet when every girls' role model, the Duchess of Cambridge, was snapped topless we were incensed. HOW COULD THEY TAKE THOSE, LET ALONE PRINT THEM. But apparently seeing Harry nude was good for us, because it gave us a sense of perspective and perhaps would encourage him to stop monkeying around.

All that is well and good, TO A POINT. Why were we so upset that Kate's privacy was violated but we were annoyed WITH Harry. Okay so it was the fact he was getting up to something debaucherous and that's bad. But it wasn't a Nazi party (thanks goodness...) Kate, on the other hand, was innocently sunning herself ... topless. Now, forgive me in advance, if I were to be marrying a Prince or was already married to said Prince, I think I may think twice before baring my tatas. But the feminist part of me says why SHOULDN'T she bare them at a private function. It's private, right? Apparently... but then, hang on, so was Harry's party. And a friend sold him out but that doesn't mean we should print those photos.

You see, lots to consider with this idea of a Privacy Bill that called for stricter regulation of the press.

And Charles refuses to sign it. It seems that, and the play reinforces this assertion as it goes on, Charles is refusing just so that he can prove he can. Bit childish, no? And of course dear sweet QE2 never did that.

The Prime Minister is UP IN ARMS. And quite rightly, because there appears to be very little logic. But, wait again, too much press regulation and we become a bit like Russia. So who is being unreasonable? Charles, or the PM. If the bill has been through all parliamentary stages, it's probably safe to say it's generally acceptable and has the support of many people - perhaps even the public.

*** I'll finish this post in the morning ... Half asleep .... Zzzzzzzz ***