Originally Posted by Osipi
The whole show to me was too surreal to even begin to think that it was meant to be an "what if" scenario that could be based in reality. The characters portrayed in the show, although based on real, actual living persons, were totally portrayed as having totally different character makeups than they actually do in real life.
OK, I've watched it now. Wow. I really enjoyed that, as unreal as it was.
I agree that the characters were mostly fairly different from what they are in real life, although I do think it tapped in quite adeptly to some of the media portrayals of each of these people, almost showing through exaggeration how silly those portrayals have been:
-an extrapolation of Kate the "Wisteria Sister," always climbing, always striving, always scheming
-Harry the lost soul - he's not been portrayed that way in a while, but I remember that briefly being the tabloid line around the time this play was written
- Camilla's loyalty to Charles as being blind and almost stupid, something that was certainly thrown about during the War of the Windsors days
- Charles as not interested in keeping the custom of royals keeping their opinions to themselves, no matter the consequences. This is the one that perhaps hits closest to the truth...see: Charles on architecture, on organic agriculture, on alternative medicine
Mostly, though, I saw it as using Charles' track record of pushing the limits of royal meddling as an jumping off point for explore how tenuous it could potentially
be for any
constitutional monarchy to limit the sovreign through custom and expectation more than by actual, written constitution.