Prince George was a "dignified figure" at last week's Trooping the Colour ceremony, said The Telegraph. But across the Atlantic, "a very different picture" of the future king is being painted in a controversial new off-Broadway hit with a "gasp-inducing" title: "Prince Faggot".
Canadian writer Jordan Tannahill's "highly speculative royal romp" is set in 2032 and imagines 18-year-old Oxford student Prince George (played by John McCrea) bringing home his Indian boyfriend Dev (Mihir Kumar) to meet the Prince and Princess of Wales (K. Todd Freeman and Rachel Crowl).
The characters "experiment with poppers, acid and S&M fetish: this fictional Prince George appears in bondage and shares a kinky fantasy of being walked like a puppy".
'Thrilling' and 'inflammatory' While the play is likely to "stir outrage" among royal insiders, who condemned "The Crown" for being "unfair" and "untrue," it has earned "rave reviews" in New York, said The Times.
While I "resist the dragooning of a preadolescent boy into a dramatic argument about sexuality and monarchy" and "cringe" at the use of the F-slur in its title, said The New York Times' theatre critic Jesse Green, the play is "thrilling". This is "inflammatory, nose-thumbing, explicit" theatre that, despite beginning in "pain and provocation", ultimately "finds its way to splendour".
Americans 'still can't get enough' of royals The real George, who turns 12 in July, "will probably Google himself in the next few years and find out about this play", said Slant.
Its depiction of the fictional prince's "addictive behaviours, his privileged petulance, and his self-destructive self-absorption" offers "limited sympathy" for his "suffering", while abdicating "any responsibility of sympathy or care toward the real one".
This play is also "the latest example of a peculiarly pervasive trend: Americans turning our royal family into an explicitly gay soap opera", said The Telegraph.
Yet the "navel-gazing" and "fluffy" depictions in shows such as HBO's "The Prince" and Amazon's "Red, White & Royal Blue" are hardly a "grave insult to the institution". Instead, they're "an odd compliment"; proof that Americans "still can't get enough of our royals, even if they have to view them through a fictionalised, flamboyantly queer modern lens to justify their enduring obsession".
|