Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:04pm
Mary Todd Lincoln was an adult (who is dead). Prince George is a child. This is a play about a fictionalized future version of Prince George, who is real, and, again, is a child.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:10pm
I understand why people who have not seen the show might find the subject matter they think the show is about to be troubling. Of course it’s deliberately provocative. It’s to get you in the door to engage in the conversation it’s trying to have.
In actuality, the subject matter is not about the imagined future of the real Prince George. It’s about a fictionalized prince that happens to be using the familiarity with the Royal Family to probe questions about sexuality, fame, queerness, and self-actualization. Provocative? Certainly. But the pearl-clutching is borderline absurd and actually the opposite of the inclusivity said pearl-clutcher seems to be lamenting the loss of.
Updated On: 6/18/25 at 03:10 PM
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:11pm
> TotallyEffed said: "It's okay if you don't, but I don't understand why some of y'all are being so damn mean about it."
Maybe it's the repetition and the sanctimony?
As you (correctly) suggest, we're not going to agree on this. but there's no new ground being trod -- it's the same sentiment, rinsed and repeated.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:19pm
ColorTheHours048 said: "I understand why peoplewho have not seen the showmight find the subject matter theythinkthe show is about might be troubling. Of course it’s deliberately provocative. It’s to get you in the door to engage in the conversation it’s trying to have.
In actuality, the subject matter is not about the imagined future of the real Prince George. It’s about a fictionalizedprince that happens to be using the familiarity with the Royal Family to probe questions about sexuality, fame, queerness, and self-actualization. Provocative? Certainly. But the pearl-clutching is borderline absurd and actually the opposite of the inclusivity said pearl-clutcher seems to be lamenting the loss of."
Yes, I understand all that. It's pretty clear from all the reviews (which are mostly positive) what the play is actually about. I said in my second post that I haven't seen the play. My point is that a lot more people will know about this play than will actually see it, and the title and subject matter are clearly intended to provoke. If I were the child who the play is about or his parents, I would be very upset (obviously), and it wouldn't matter at all what the play is actually about, what it's really trying to say, or even whether it's good. I just don't understand why people would choose to be provocative in that way about a real person who is eleven years old. That's all.
Goodbye for now, Internet.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:26pm
You’re not the personal involved in the source material. You’re not a royal. You don’t have a lot of people talking about you constantly. You don’t have death threats and the pressures and the obligations he has. You don’t bare the weight of this play and it’s impact on this person. And this person will probably find minimal impact from a fictionalized story of what it would look like if there was a gay prince compared to ALL of the impactful challenges he will face in his life.
That has to be a relief. Problem solved! Have a good one.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:37pm
To your point, Rentaholic, more people will read an article title than the article itself. I don’t tend to read article titles and comment on the content of them, but that’s just me.
This is the last comment I’ll make in this thread, but a lot of the reason social media discourse is so toxic is because people are reading headlines and quotes taken out of context rather than actually engaging with the content. The title - Prince Faggot - is to get you buzzing; the play itself, the content of it, is what brings you into the conversation. If all you’re allowing in is the sensationalistic part of it - the currently 11-year-old Prince of England is depicted as a 22-year-old gay man after his sexuality was speculated about from the age of 5 - that’s part of the reason Jordan Tannahill wrote it to begin with.
Updated On: 6/18/25 at 03:37 PM
Posted: 6/18/25 at 3:57pm
Is it weird to speculate about the sexuality of an 11-year old? Yes, but that's not QUITE what this play is doing. It's not saying "we think this is what's going to happen with Prince George" (and the show does address in the intro that just because sexuality doesn't necessarily apply yet to pre-pubescent children, that doesn't mean those children necessarily grow up without having any sort of sexual preference either). Is it weird to have someone write a fantasy version of your future life that uses your name and the names of your family members? Yes, but so is every aspect of being a royal and having your every move and every outing scrutinized and talked about by the public. I don't think it's possible for anyone on this board to truly know what it's like to be born into that position and to straddle that role as both a real person and as a symbol/icon of a country.
I'm not a parent and don't know what it's like to be a parent to an 11 year old who is talked about by the entire world. But I also don't know what it means to have my entire life be seen in the public eye and to have all sorts of speculation/hopes/iconography pinned on me since birth, and that's also part of what this piece is exploring. It's often muddled at times but the interest lies in what it would mean for the queer community if someone who is SO well known as a symbol throughout the world would be part of their community, and whether they truly could. I mentioned in my previous post that I'm not sure it was "necessary" for the playwright to use the real names of the existing royal family, but that's what they chose to do and maybe this kind of discourse was also what they were going for.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 4:23pm
It’s not speculating. It might be imagining, sure. And fictional works have done that about the royal family for hundreds of years.
But if it were jumping ahead 50 years and imagining him as King with a Queen and children, then you wouldn’t care. You wouldn’t say it was sexualizing him, even if the king and queen had a sex scene.
That line of criticism is implicitly homophobic.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 4:26pm
BJR said: "It’s not speculating. It might be imagining, sure. And fictional works have done that about the royal family for hundreds of years.
But if it were jumping ahead 50 years and imagining him as King with a Queen and children, then you wouldn’t care. You wouldn’t say it was sexualizinghim, even if the king and queen had a sex scene.
That line of criticism is implicitly homophobic."
A parent expressing concern about a play entitled Prince Faggot that is inspired by a child currently 11 years old is implicitly homophobic. Right, right.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 4:45pm
This sounds like Strange Loop all over again. I haven't been back to PH since Strange Loop and I am not going back. As a gay man, I found Strange Loop horrendous. This sounds even worse.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 4:50pm
TotallyEffed said: "A parent expressing concern about a play entitled Prince Faggot that isinspired by a child currently 11 years old is implicitly homophobic. Right, right."
Them being a parent is irrelevant. It might explain ones sensitivity, but it doesn't make the argument more true.
Imagine the play was about a King George in 2044 (stranger things have happened), and it was, say, about the friendship between him and the prime minister. And in the play, the king had a love scene with the queen. We would not be saying, How DARE you imagine he was straight and he might have sex with his WIFE, how very confusing for this CHILD.
We simply would not be saying that. It would be clear it was an imagined situation about a public figure/politician.
Updated On: 6/18/25 at 04:50 PM
Posted: 6/18/25 at 5:04pm
BJR said: "TotallyEffed said: "A parent expressing concern about a play entitled Prince Faggot that isinspired by a child currently 11 years old is implicitly homophobic. Right, right."
Them being a parent is irrelevant. It might explain ones sensitivity, but it doesn't make the argument more true.
Imagine the play was about a King George in 2044 (stranger things have happened), and it was, say, about the friendship between him and the prime minister. And in the play, the king had a love scene with the queen. We would not be saying, How DARE you imagine he was straight and he might have sex with his WIFE, how very confusing for this CHILD.
We simply would not be saying that. It would be clear it was an imagined situation about a public figure/politician."
But… that’s not what the play is about. The actual play in question (not some hypothetical play you’re making up) is called Prince Faggot and if you’re comparing that to a play about grown straight people and acting like it’s the exact same thing then I’m afraid you’re too obtuse to debate with any further.
Being accused of being gay before you’ve even gone through puberty and having a play inspired by yourself at nine years old called Prince Faggot is not the same thing as someone imagining you marrying a woman decades from now. Let’s not act for one second like queer people are on an even playing field with straight people. Straight people don’t have to endure the bullying, humiliation, shame, potential dangers and mental illnesses so many young queer people suffer. He’s being accused of being gay now and he’s just a kid. The way some gays love to cackle and accuse people of being gay and closeted is way more homophobic to me than someone expressing discomfort with the idea of a play inspired by a photo of a nine year old titled Prince Faggot.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 5:11pm
ACCUSED of being gay????????
Posted: 6/18/25 at 5:16pm
whatever2 said: "ACCUSED of being gay????????"
Exactly. Gave the game away.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 5:57pm
whatever2 said: "ACCUSED of being gay????????"
Yup. His true colors are showing. Again.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 5:57pm
CurtainsUpat8 said: "This sounds like Strange Loop all over again. I haven't been back to PH since Strange Loop and I am not going back. As a gay man, I found Strange Loop horrendous. This sounds even worse."
As a gay man, your opinions are noted and discarded.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 6:13pm
Is now a bad time to mention that the sold out run has extended to July 27th?
Posted: 6/18/25 at 6:17pm
quizking101 said: "Is now a bad time to mention that the sold out run has extended to July 27th?"
Shhhhh. You might upset the rando member of One Million Moms who keeps crying about this, as well as her staunch supporter who keeps defending all of her moronic posts.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 6:17pm
Also, all this pearl clutching - yeesh!
We recently had a play in 2017 on Broadway that made wild speculations about the future of the British Royals on the basis on current events at the time…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Charles_III_(play)
Posted: 6/18/25 at 7:37pm
I often find TotallyEffed annoying and sanctimonious but when people talk about 11 year olds "seeming gay" they very much mean it as an accusation and anyone who's been gay and 11 is lying if they say they don't know that.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 8:06pm
CurtainsUpat8 said: "This sounds like Strange Loop all over again. I haven't been back to PH since Strange Loop and I am not going back. As a gay man, I found Strange Loop horrendous. This sounds even worse."
Horrendous to you, but as a gay black man I found it close to brilliant and so did a lot of gay white men who saw the show. Some multiple times. Not everyone comes away with the same feelings about a show. Or gets it messege. Not just my opinion, but also the truth.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 8:07pm
TotallyEffed said: "
Beingaccused of being gay before you’ve even gone through puberty and having a play inspired by yourself at nine years old called Prince Faggot is not the same thing as someone imagining you marrying a woman decades from now. Let’s not act for one second like queer people are on an even playing field with straight people. Straight people don’t have to endure the bullying, humiliation, shame, potential dangers and mental illnesses so many young queer people suffer.He’s being accused of being gaynowand he’s just a kid. The way some gays love to cackle and accuse people of being gay and closetedis way more homophobic to me than someone expressing discomfort with the idea of a play inspired bya photo of a nine year oldtitled Prince Faggot."
NGL I read this and my jaw was on the floor from all the homophobia. “Accused of being gay?” My god, that’s saying the quiet part out loud isn’t it. Would you ever say someone was accused of being straight? Typically you only *accuse* someone of a crime.
I have not seen this play, but I’d say in general it’s valid to not project anything about a child’s sexuality when they are that young at all—whether gay or straight. It sounds like this play might imagine a real person who is currently 11 years old in hypothetical future sexual encounters and that in and of itself would probably be really hard for the kid (but again I have not seen this play!)
But I’m not sure how imagining a child might be gay when they grow up is any worse than imagining they might be straight when they grow up—unless the former is seen as a moral failing of some sort.
You’d have to be pretty entrenched in oppressive levels of heteronormativity to call merely imaging a kid might be gay something bad.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 8:18pm
Are people here just talking past each other? Young kids don't tend to have suicidal thoughts because they are taunted, bullied or yes, accused, of being straight. But they have historically, and some still do, do if called gay. Unless I am mistaken there is no Trevor Project for straight kids. Parents don't kick their kids out of the house for being straight.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 8:18pm
BroadwayGirl107 said: "TotallyEffed said: "But I’m not sure how imagining a child might be gay when they grow up is any worse than imagining they might be straight when they grow up—unless the former is seen as a moral failing of some sort.
You’d have to be pretty entrenched in oppressive levels of heteronormativity to call merely imaging a kid might be gay something bad."
Brilliantly said, far better than I did. And exactly.
Posted: 6/18/25 at 8:22pm
quizking101 said: "Is now a bad time to mention that the sold out run has extended to July 27th?"
I... I... think I love you.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
