dailyO
Art & Culture

Our own not-so-royal succession drama deserves 'King Charles III' treatment

Advertisement
Kaveree Bamzai
Kaveree BamzaiMay 15, 2017 | 10:53

Our own not-so-royal succession drama deserves 'King Charles III' treatment

It may be somewhat ridiculously over-acted and the dialogue inappropriately Shakespearian, but one cannot fault the intent of King Charles III, BBC Two’s new one-off royal drama. First seen as a play written in blank verse by Mike Bartlett it imagines an England with Queen Elizabeth dead and Prince Charles, her long suffering and long in wait heir, taking over.

With the late Tim Piggott-Smith playing Charles, it examines how history will remember him - as a forgotten gardener who spoke to his plants and chuckled to himself or as the greatest king ever. Alongside him are Prince William, his older son who is torn between love for his father and adoration for his late mother; Kate, who is controversially shown as scheming and plotting to be a full-fledged queen; Harry, a lost boy who is bound to his brother by a promise to his late mother; Camilla, who has little to do except sit at the breakfast table and admonish the uppity Kate; and a prime minister who is harried by a king who wants to reinterpret the powers of the monarchy.

Advertisement

charles_051517103725.jpg
The late Tim Pigott-Smith plays Prince Charles. [Photo: Screengrab]

It may be nothing like Netflix’s stately drama The Crown, the first season of which examined the ascent of Elizabeth and her education at the hands of an ailing Winston Churchill, but King Charles III does underline two things—the world’s fascination with the empire (the last year itself has seen The Crown, White Queen, and the wonderful Victoria, not to mention the campy The Royals) as well as the possibilities that political TV can examine in Britain. Imagine a similar show in India with the queen and prince of a particular political party - a delicious drama waiting to be written but which may well never be told.

King Charles III looks at the role of the monarchy in the 21st century - should it be just a “pretty plastic picture which has no meaning” run by those who draw their power by the colonisation of column inches, or should it be a relationship of advise and consent where the executive and the monarchy decide the course of the nation, the Church and the State working in harmony and full disclosure.

Will Charles be king of the Commonwealth or will he be faithful servant to his shallow sons? Will Diana exact her revenge on him even from her grave - her ghost appears often in the show, clad in her trademark white dress, showing off her fashionably long legs, speaking breathily into musty rooms? The outbreak of royal dramas may well reflect the disquiet that abounds with the state of current politics.

Advertisement

the-crown_051517105132.jpg
The Crown. [Photo: Screengrab]

white-queen_051517105156.jpg
White Queen. [Photo: Screengrab]

In the US, it is reflected in the political dramas that range from House of Cards to Homeland, and is reflected in reality in the rise of outsiders such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. In Britain, the element of nostalgia reigns with beloved queens like Victoria and Elizabeth being frequently tapped for stories.

In the age of Brexit, perhaps it is true what someone says in King Charles III, the Queen is the spine that holds England together. Defender of the faith, she demonstrates the way a just society ought to be. History gave her that opportunity—the Blitz, the rebuilding of Britain, the creation of a new multicultural society even after losing the Empire. Charles has long looked for a role for himself and despite being 68 is yet to find it.

Reminds one of a certain Queen Dowager of a political party and her always unready heir apparent, divided courtiers, and attempted coups, doesn’t it? Now that is one political drama I’d love to tune in to.

Advertisement

Last updated: May 16, 2017 | 11:54
IN THIS STORY
Please log in
I agree with DailyO's privacy policy