"King Charles III" (2017) - BBC Two Future History Film on Reign of Prince Charles

[Dman]

'This is just Royal bullying': Viewers attack BBC for showing ghost of Diana on new Charles III show

The whole Diana ghost was really bad taste though. I don't know why anyone would think that was a good idea. Folks need to stop using her to beat up the royal family.

Also, they need to bring the Charles III character down to earth. The man talk as if he just inherited the throne from Elizabeth I.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I am aware that this is of course a work of fiction, but I still wasn't a fan of the show. I didn't like the anti-monarchist feel but I guess that's what those who made the film were aiming for. I also thought the appearance of Diana's ghost was a little unnecessary.
IIRC the actor who played Prince Harry is also Harry in the theatre version of the play and has also played the same character in The Windsors.

 

[wyevale]

talk as if he just inherited the throne from Elizabeth I.

I'm afraid you have fundamentally failed to grasp the reason 'iambic pentameter' was used for all the speech, [except Harry's and his girlfriend's]
This is the form of speech used in Shakespeare and thus places 'Charles lll' in the same 'space' as Shakespeare's 'History Plays'.
Thus a play set 'in the near future', immediately becomes linked [in British minds'] with some of our greatest narratives, and there were MANY parallels to Shakespeare plays [aside from the language].
Diana's ghost/Banquo's ghost in Macbeth..for example, and Diana's deliberately ambiguity in telling both Charles and William they would be 'the greatest King'. Ambiguity was one of Shakespeares oft used tools..
And Catherine as an ambitious 'Lady Macbeth' figure [tho'markedly less bloody].
On balance I found it more interesting than satisfactory [it was peppered with inaccuracies], and [as a British Monarchist] I felt curiously 'disloyal' watching it..

 

[Dman]

I'm afraid you have fundamentally failed to grasp the reason 'iambic pentameter' was used for all the speech, [except Harry's and his girlfriend's]
This is the form of speech used in Shakespeare and thus places 'Charles lll' in the same 'space' as Shakespeare's 'History Plays'.
Thus a play set 'in the near future', immediately becomes linked [in British minds'] with some of our greatest narratives, and there were MANY parallels to Shakespeare plays [aside from the language].
Diana's ghost/Banquo's ghost in Macbeth..for example, and Diana's deliberately ambiguity in telling both Charles and William they would be 'the greatest King'. Ambiguity was one of Shakespeares oft used tools..
And Catherine as an ambitious 'Lady Macbeth' figure [tho'markedly less bloody].
On balance I found it more interesting than satisfactory [it was peppered with inaccuracies], and [as a British Monarchist] I felt curiously 'disloyal' watching it..

I understand all of that and it's the reason why I turned my computer off and was very sorry I even made the effort to watch. The whole thing was incredibly distasteful. That was just episode 1.

 

[Lady Nimue]

We are watching the show now on Masterpiece Theatre. I am loving it!

I personally think that the use of a 'starchy' formal English is inspired. Raises it above a soapy melodrama. Some interesting issues being discussed. Just 40 minutes in and we are riveted.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I see the use of the the Diana character as essential to the whole psychological underpinnings of Charles, William and Harry. She does 'haunt'. Excellent.

The characterization of Catherine is amazing. Wow.

We are at the point where Charles dissolves the Parliament. What fun!

Anyone else watching this in the US?

 

[DanyT]

I see the use of the the Diana character as essential to the whole psychological underpinnings of Charles, William and Harry. She does 'haunt'. Excellent.

The characterization of Catherine is amazing. Wow.

We are at the point where Charles dissolves the Parliament. What fun!

Anyone else watching this in the US?

I watched it last night also. I was very entertained by it. I liked the Kate character especially her monologue about her public persona. I don't understand nit picking historical inaccuracies in a play based on an alternative future.

 

[loonytick]

I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but I'm very interested to watch, especially given that it's taking the approach of riffing on Shakespearean speech and themes. Given that it's a total fiction about real people, I'd rather it not try to be too realistic. Better to be very clear, right down to the style chosen, that it's completely imaginary. Being able to see the contrast between the real people and the fictional ones is perhaps a good reminder that those great "history" plays of Shakespeare are also only lightly based on the actual history of the people who are their central characters.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I haven't had a chance to see it yet, but I'm very interested to watch, especially given that it's taking the approach of riffing on Shakespearean speech and themes. Given that it's a total fiction about real people, I'd rather it not try to be too realistic. Better to be very clear, right down to the style chosen, that it's completely imaginary. Being able to see the contrast between the real people and the fictional ones is perhaps a good reminder that those great "history" plays of Shakespeare are also only lightly based on the actual history of the people who are their central characters.

Well, yes and no. What makes it riveting is the 'reality' that is peppered into the stew pot that makes up the play.

I will say, when one sees the two who become King and Queen on the throne at the end, one does not feel good about it. JMO.

 

[Noble Consort Ming]

Also, the relationship between "Harry" and his girlfriend is a little too obvious. I bet this was a quick put together since it became known Harry and Meghan are dating.

As a play Charles III premiered in 2014, before Harry and Meghan were dating.

This program was an adaptation of the play.

 

[Mbruno]

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about the play and the TV adaptation. As a piece of contemporary Shakespearean drama, it is OK. However, despite being fictional, the play features real, living people in a near future and assigns certain Shakespearean-like roles to each of those people based, no doubt, on the author's subjective impression of their personalities.

In other words, the fiction in the play does not arise from nowhere or exist in a vacuum. Prince Charles, for example, has long been criticized for being too "political" and for testing the boundaries of acceptable behavior for a constitutional monarch. It is not entirely surprising then that the author would imagine him as possibly refusing to give royal assent to a bill and forcing a dissolution of parliament (although the latter would now be legally impossible for him to do actually). Likewise, I am pretty sure Kate, Camilla, William or Harry behave in the play in a way that wouldn't be inconceivable in the real world according to the author's perception. Part of that perception may be, however, offensive to the real-world persons in question , or may, either intentionally or unintentionally, reinforce some preconceived ideas the public may have about them.

 

[Osipi]

I know I've said previously that I would not watch this program but the more I've read here about it, I've decided to watch it with an open mind. That's not to say its been easy by any means. It was more apt to say I'd watch it with closed eyes.

I missed the original broadcast last night and then had it programmed in for a later showing which was at 4 am my time. Needless to say, I fell asleep in my recliner during the first half hour of it. I've got it programmed to run again at 2:30 am later on and hopefully will be awake and alert to see it in its entirety.

One thing that did hit me was the reason Charles felt he could not sign the bill. It was assumed that by the experiences of intrusions by the press he'd be all for the curtailing of the press the bill would implement but as King, Charles weighed the implications more on the line of how it affected the nation's inalienable rights than how it affected him. This might be way off base as I've not seen much of what happened yet but that's my initial impression.

Somehow too, the Shakespearian quality of the words in Charles' thoughts seem fitting.

Now to brew a strong pot of coffee to assure I'm awake later on.

 

[duchessrachel]

Is King Charles III on anywhere in the United States?

 

[Osipi]

Check your local PBS station. They're the ones that carry Masterpiece Theater and where I've been able to find "King Charles III" air times.

 

[Skippyboo]

It aired on PBS last night. Probably on the PBS website by now.

 

[Mirabel]

It made me feel sorry for Charles, and feel angry with Kate, William, and Harry (even though it's a work of fiction).

 

[Lady Nimue]

It made me feel sorry for Charles, and feel angry with Kate, William, and Harry (even though it's a work of fiction).

In spades. Yes. Very powerful drama based on that alone.

P.S. Look forward to discussing it with others who have seen it.

 

[royal rob]

Do any Australian posters know if it's going to be aired here ?

 

[Denville]

Is it any good> I missed it.. I love the actor Tim Pigott Smith, but I'm sure ti will be on again

 

[Osipi]

After watching the show in its entirety, my first impression that it could have been billed as Charles' worst nightmare presented on stage/screen. The things that happened seem like they very well could be Charles' worst fears that *could* happen when he becomes King.

Charles has always been a man that, over his lifetime, has fretted about his own self esteem and his purposes and doing things the right way and with a purpose which was clearly depicted by him standing up as a monarch to defend the freedom of the press rather than be bullied into being a puppet king.

In the long run, the eventual ending actually showed Charles' inner feelings about his family over his duty as a monarch. The way it came about, to me, did not portray how his sons (and Kate) actually are in real life but what Charles could have feared his sons may turn out like should that situation arise. More or less, the worst possible scenario.

The use of the Shakespearean way of conversing, to me, portrays the unreal quality of the whole program as if Charles was in a dream and transposed a Shakespearean tragedy onto his nightmare of fears.

It was actually a very novel way to present the screenplay I think. I'm actually glad I watched it.

 

[Denville]

sounds pretty awful... pretentious, silly.. and I would have said that it would be better to leave the sons out of it.. unless they're trying to take over from him??

 

[Osipi]

Not going to spoil the plot of the story for you nor the ending.

 

[Skippyboo]

It's not up to the monarch to defend the freedom of the press. The monarch doesn't have a veto over the elected Parliament. It is a puppet monarchy. It has been for a long time. Basically since the Glorious Revolution.

If Parliament sent a bill ending the monarchy, the monarch would have to sign it.

I have the program on my DVR but I don't think I will watch it if it's all Charles being Eeyore like. I also find it laughable that after the War of Wales that Charles would somehow defend the press.

 

[DanyT]

It's not up to the monarch to defend the freedom of the press. The monarch doesn't have a veto over the elected Parliament. It is a puppet monarchy. It has been for a long time. Basically since the Glorious Revolution.

If Parliament sent a bill ending the monarchy, the monarch would have to sign it.

I have the program on my DVR but I don't think I will watch it if it's all Charles being Eeyore like. I also find it laughable that after the War of Wales that Charles would somehow defend the press.

Agreed. Charles was completely in the wrong here. I don't understand the sympathy for him. He brought the ending on himself.

 

[Osipi]

That's why I had the feeling that the whole presentation was of a surreal nature and not representative of the reality of Charles' actually becoming King. There was one part where Charles declares he's going to bed and I was half expecting the line "perchance to dream". It seemed reflective of Hamlet where its stated “To die, to sleep – to sleep, perchance to dream – aye, there's the rub, for in this sleep of death what dreams may come…” This is said by Hamlet to himself when he thinks he is alone"

What made it more obvious to me that it was surreal was at the very beginning Charles walks out of the Abbey on his own and addresses the camera as if he's vocalizing his inner thoughts a la Hamlet. That set the tone of the entire presentation for me.

From what had been remarked on with the appearances of Diana's ghost during the whole thing, I found it to be, looking at the presentation as I did, appropriate that no matter what had transpired between Charles and Diana in reality, its effects were still felt by Charles as an older man as haunting memories.

 

[Lady Nimue]

The 'impressions' being given by those who have not seen the show are not helpful - especially given that others (rightly or wrongly) are being careful not to give away the plot. But it makes it a strange thread with all the dissing of a show being done by those who have not seen the show.

The conundrum that confronts Charles is an interesting one, but I think it is used as a devise to explore the 'what if' one had a monarch who had definite ethical boundaries that a piece of legislation crossed? It's a relevant question. How would that work?

The ending is wrenching in my view because it signifies the loss of an ethical stand in favor of ambition and the will to status and power. Very interesting writing imo. (In which the 'next generation' perforce is also a devise to make a point).

 

[Mbruno]

The 'impressions' being given by those who have not seen the show are not helpful - especially given that others (rightly or wrongly) are being careful not to give away the plot. But it makes it a strange thread with all the dissing of a show being done by those who have not seen the show.

The conundrum that confronts Charles is an interesting one, but I think it is used as a devise to explore the 'what if' one had a monarch who had definite ethical boundaries that a piece of legislation crossed? It's a relevant question. How would that work?

The ending is wrenching in my view because it signifies the loss of an ethical stand in favor of ambition and the will to status and power. Very interesting writing imo. (In which the 'next generation' perforce is also a devise to make a point).

In any case, there is a legal issue that makes the play implausible: the monarch lost the power to dissolve parliament unilaterally when the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act came into effect (if I'm not mistaken, in 2011). Parliament is now automatically dissolved 25 working days before the date of a general election and a general election is held only in three circumstances:

1. On the first Thursday of May in the fifth calendar year following the last general election.
2. If the House of Commons, by a majority of two-thirds, passes a motion deciding that there should be an early parliamentary election.
3. If the House of Commons, by a plurality, passes a motion of no confidence in the government and, within 14 days, does not pass another motion of confidence (presumably in an alternative government).

Under circumstances (2) and (3), the date of the extraordinary election is then set out by royal proclamation on the recommendation of the prime minister. The latter is actually the only part of the process where the king is formally involved. Furthermore, Section 3(2) of the aforementioned act is explicit in saying that : "Parliament cannot otherwise be dissolved ".


Since the play premiered in 2014, one would expect the author to have done better research before writing it.

 

[Denville]

I suppose I'll catch it sooner or later, but I nevr mind spoiling an ending. however it sounds like sub standard House of Cards fare./

 

[csw]

As a prediction of the future, the show is not interesting or credible. As an exercise in creating a Shakespearean play using modern characters, I found it an interesting exercise.

 

[Lady Nimue]

As a prediction of the future, the show is not interesting or credible. As an exercise in creating a Shakespearean play using modern characters, I found it an interesting exercise.

I diasagree. I think it posits a possibility (however it might come about). The mechanisms the playwright decided to use may be questionable but the premise is fascinating imo.

I wish IMDb still had their discussion boards. This is an example of where some good informative conversation would take place. There are 11 reviews about 50/50 pro/con - but there are about 4 solid reviews worth reading.

BTW I think the Shakespearean aspect is what lifts the play into the realm of a higher consideration. As one reviewer states it assures it's not mistaken for a soap opera. The language makes certain that one doesn't mistake the play for a mere biopic.