Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of "Prince Faggot"

To be fair, Smash was also a NY Times Critic's Pick

I saw this last week and thought it was kind of a mess. A sometimes captivating mess, but a mess.

To folks saying the show borders on child pornography, I wouldn’t necessarily say “see the show before judging” because it’s ultimately not worth your time. The show does discuss that sort of knee jerk reaction as a bit of a jumping off point - the sexualization of children discussed in the opening monologue in comparing one of the actors’ obviously queer childhood photos to the famous photo of a young Prince George - but doesn’t really do anything with it.

The play itself I wouldn’t personally consider problematic, but the bulk of the plot concerns the Prince in his 20s, post-university, navigating his first public relationship; discovering kink and chemsex; managing (or not managing) heartbreak; and generally being a bird flapping around in his gilded cage. It’s all pretty conventional actually. But what is the play saying about any of it? Nothing really. How does it connect to the performers’ repeated monologues about their unique perspectives on how their queerness/race shaped their own stories? I couldn’t tell you.

The sex is titillating, I guess. It’s as graphic and realistic as simulated onstage sex can be, but it’s not as subversive (to me) as I think it’s trying to come off. There’s some light bondage and a pig mask at one point, but it feels like shock value rather than any kind of exploration. David Greenspan has a beautiful monologue about fisting, while Rachel Crowl and N’Yomi Allure Stewart offer much-needed perspective shifting monologues of their own, but the individual moments that worked didn’t cohere into a whole for me.

Does anyone involved with this production care at all how it might make an eleven-year-old boy feel? As he is just on the verge of discovering his own sexuality, here comes a very high-profile play that not only speculates on his ultimate sexual identity but also on specific sexual preferences, drug use, etc. Could the playwright have gotten his points across if he had written this play about a fictional prince? I don't care that he's royalty or that he's a public figure, he is a prepubescent child. Regardless of whether he turns out to be gay, there now exists a play that calls him a "faggot" in the title and he has no say in whether it's meant to be a pejorative or a statement of reclaimed pride. Some things are simply cruel.

RippedMan said: "have you seen the show or read the review? (I have not seen the show) but it seems like they address this at the beginning?"

I have not seen the show, and I understand from the reviews how they try to address this at the beginning. It doesn't matter. 99% of the population will never see this show or know what it's trying to say. They will know it's called "Prince Faggot" and that it's about Prince George and some of the salacious details, and he will have to deal with its existence now. It is deeply cruel to do something like that to a real life child.

Doesn't make it any less cruel.

Rentaholic2 said: "Does anyone involved with this production care at all how it might make aneleven-year-oldboy feel? As he is just on the verge of discovering his own sexuality, here comes a very high-profile play that not only speculates on his ultimatesexual identitybut also on specific sexual preferences, drug use, etc. Could the playwright have gotten his points across if he had written this play about a fictional prince? I don't care that he's royalty or that he's a public figure, he is a prepubescent child. Regardless of whether he turns out to be gay, there now exists a play that calls him a "faggot" in the title and he has no say in whether it's meant to be apejorative or astatement of reclaimed pride.Some things are simply cruel."

I'll admit I was also a bit confused as to why the bulk of the play needed to be the actual royal family (albeit fantasy portrayals of them). They do get a couple pot shots at Andrew and reference Meghan and the known royal family drama, but I think they could've done the same thing with a fictional royal family. Maybe it was to head off discourse that they were clearly using the existing royal family as a template and just decided to be more forthright with it (for better or worse)

JSquared2 said: "Rentaholic2 said: "Does anyone involved with this production care at all how it might make aneleven-year-oldboy feel? As he is just on the verge of discovering his own sexuality, here comes a very high-profile play that not only speculates on his ultimatesexual identitybut also on specific sexual preferences, drug use, etc. Could the playwright have gotten his points across if he had written this play about a fictional prince? I don't care that he's royalty or that he's a public figure, he is a prepubescent child. Regardless of whether he turns out to be gay, there now exists a play that calls him a "faggot" in the title and he has no say in whether it's meant to be apejorative or astatement of reclaimed pride.Some things are simply cruel."


JFC -- would you give it a rest? How many 11-year old boys (or girls) do you think are seeing the show??

Posts like this are why half the country hates us."



They are clearly referring to the actual 11 year old prince the play is about, not 11 year olds in general.

I guess a new thread wasn't needed after all. The first page of the original covered all the pearl-clutching and outrage, so when the show actually began previews, the comments were actually about the show. Now here we are again.

The title of this show is incredibly provocative. Intentionally. Like Slave Play, people are going to discuss if whether they’ve seen it not.

Rentaholic2 said: "Does anyone involved with this production care at all how it might make aneleven-year-oldboy feel? As he is just on the verge of discovering his own sexuality, here comes a very high-profile play that not only speculates on his ultimatesexual identitybut also on specific sexual preferences, drug use, etc. Could the playwright have gotten his points across if he had written this play about a fictional prince? I don't care that he's royalty or that he's a public figure, he is a prepubescent child. Regardless of whether he turns out to be gay, there now exists a play that calls him a "faggot" in the title and he has no say in whether it's meant to be apejorative or astatement of reclaimed pride.Some things are simply cruel."

Won't someone think of the children??

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 02:24 PM

Rentaholic2 said: "You don't have to see this show to imagine how the publicly available information about it could be damaging to the child who is the subject of the show (and spare me the "he'll never hear about it," you have no basis for knowing that). Am I the only parent on this board? For a community that prides itself on inclusivity, kindness, and compassion, this is a total blind spot. There's simply no reason to make a specificeleven-year-old the subject of a provocative play, particular one that deals with something as sensitive and personal as sexuality."

The sensitivity and personal nature of sexuality is very much a point addressed by the play, which you haven’t even seen. It isn’t about the actual Prince George any more than Oh, Mary! is about Mary Todd Lincoln, so spare us the sanctimony.

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 02:55 PM

The play is about the imagined future of a boy who is currently 11 years old and the play is called Prince Faggot. C'mon, it's not that hard to understand why some people might find that troubling. It's okay if you don't, but I don't understand why some of y'all are being so damn mean about it.



Green addresses it in the first few paragraphs of his review:

"Early in the play, we are shown a famous picture of Tips at 4, looking adorable and, to them, arguably fey.

Tips is better known to the world as Prince George of Wales, the oldest child of Prince William and Princess Catherine. The real Prince George is now 11. For that reason, I will hereafter refer to the character by his nickname. I am one of those who, as the play anticipates, resist the dragooning of a preadolescent boy into a dramatic argument about sexuality and monarchy — just as I cringe at the use of a slur I take no reclaimed pride in to market a title. If the playwright means to shock, mission accomplished."

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 03:02 PM