We had a rare 'evening out' last night, in the 'evening entirely for pleasure' sense. We went to see Mike Bartlett's 'King Charles III' at the Cambridge Arts Theatre.(The play is currently on tour for us out-of-London types.) It has been hugely well reviewed, and we didn't think it quite came up to the hype, but still well worth seeing if it comes near you.
The plot, I guess. is well known (though I wont spoil the end). It is set just after the funeral of the present Queen, and Charles who has waited so long for the throne almost instantly goes head-to-head with the Prime Minister, refusing to sign off (that is give 'Royal Assent' to) a new piece of legislation restricting freedom of the press. Most of the main royals are there, including Harry who is now negotiating his role as the spare by having a dalliance with a young Republican art student -- who is, predictably, being unfairly pursued by the press.
It is all scripted in sub-Shakespearean blank verse, and full of clever little allusions to Shakespearean tragedy. And that works extrordinarily well. The problem for us was that, in the end, the political bite was rather muffled, and the point was just a little unsurprising, as you'll see if you go to see it.
Afterwards, we found ourselves talking about two things.