Is King Charles III a case for an Australian Republic?
Set in the not-too-distant future, after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III depicts an England in disarray - Charles has ascended to the throne, but almost immediately refuses assent to sign a bill into law. Never mind that the law aims to restrict press freedom and Charles faces a crisis of conscience. At the same time, however, he's grappling with the very nature of monarchy - what does it mean to be King? What powers ought a King to have? When Parliament refuses to reconsider the bill, threatening instead of enact a different law removing the very need for royal assent, King Charles III dissolves Parliament - and the British populace is left to consider who they are, with or without the monarchy.
Overall, the production is clever, knowingly so. Mike Bartlett has written the entire play like a Shakespearean tragedy in blank verse: we have ghosts, we have familial divides, the thirst for power (hello Kate and Wills, captured as the media-savvy giants they are by Jennifer Bryden and Ben Righton). And Robert Powell is our King Charles III, and he plays the role with tenderness - his is not mere caricature. But the question remains: is this a case for an Australian Republic? Why do we even care about the royals now anyway? Watching this play out, we couldn't help but wonder: what relevance does this hold for this colonial outpost? How will the monarchy stay relevant?
