Jesse Green NYT's Critic's Pick review of "Prince Faggot" — Page 3

I mean, a photo of Prince George as a very young child posing in a way that could be interpreted as effeminate became an extremely widespread meme. The joke was at his expense and became a major way this child was seen in popular culture for a while. Are some of you totally unaware of this?

And you're jumping down the throat of TotallyEffed for using the word "accused"? Maybe that's not the best word choice, but everything else TotallyEffed described is what actually happened: the world was laughing at a very famous kid because he seemed gay. It is literally what inspired this play that it kind of seems like only a couple of people on this thread have actually seen.

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 09:49 PM

I don't have a problem with the conceit of the play- I think basically everything is fair game in art- but I also totally understand why some people may have an aversion to the idea of a piece of art depicting a speculative adult version of a real, living child having graphic, kinky, drug-fueled sex, regardless of the fictional version's sexuality. But nobody on this thread is trying to censor it, just voicing their distaste toward the idea. And it is, objectively, a deliberately provocative idea.

Updated On: 6/18/25 at 10:25 PM

That Telegraph article is shockingly homophobic.

MemorableUserName said: "The commenters, however, areas appalled as the pearl-clutchers here."

I haven't seen any pearl-clutching on this thread. I've just seen people discussing the appropriateness of a play's deliberately provocative title (and to some extent the content). I haven't seen the play yet and don't have much of an opinion about the title, but surely people can argue both sides of this issue without being "pearl-clutchers."

Well, I just went I thought of this new play, Prince F*****, because it is better than Kinky Boots. But, come on, this is 2025. Prince F***** is undeniably good, I guess.

TheatreAddict said: "I'm a little reluctant to step into this quicksand of a thread, but I do have thoughts, so here I go.

I saw the show. I think it's more than a bit of a mess and far from perfect, but I also found it absolutely thrilling and in many ways brilliant. The ideas were extremely thought-provoking (I'm still thinking about it a couple of weeks later), and the production (acting, direction, design) was superb.

I think the arguments in this thread doubting that we would be outraged if George wereportrayed as a straight King who was depicted having sex are spot on, and that speaks to the double standard we still have in our society.

Wesexualize children as heteronormative all the time, and this is a point that the play explicitly makes in its prologue. The play ponders (based on a photo of him at the age of four) whether Prince George may grow to identify as gay, and it suggests that our sexual identity begins to form when we are very young, before we begin to be aware of sexual desire or even what sex is. That is certainly my experience as a gay man looking back at my childhood.

But we live in a homophobic world, and while few people would be outraged by a speculative depiction of the adult George as a straight man, there are obviously many people who feel protective toward the child who might suffer ridicule because he is depicted as a gay man.

The British Monarchy has a long history of people who are born into The Firm, andwho come to resent the scrutiny and responsibility that entails. I have great empathy for what Harry and Meghan have gone through, and I respect their decision to step away from it all. I similarly have empathy for the young Prince George, who didn't ask to be born into this family or the responsibility of being heir to the throne, but who already has such scrutiny on him as a child.

But part of what signals warning bells is that the outrage is primarily that George is depicted as gay, whichshouldbe seen as a neutral (rather than negative) trait, and there is very little being said about the fact that he is depicted as a drug addict and a narcissistic asshole, which are objectively negative traits. So I think this points to the homophobia (whether conscious or not) of those criticizing the depiction of his sexual identity rather than his character.

The play is deliberately provocative, but the content and ideas are deeper than the shock value of the premise. It made me question a lot of the thorny issues that have been discussed on this board, and that's part of why I think it's great, if imperfect, theatre. And why, despite the tricky moral questions about whether it should even exist, I'm glad it's there."

Best post ever! I wish everyone here would just see the show and form their opinions afterwards. Calling this show a mess and thrilling at the same time is a huge reason it's so worth seeing! And THEN discussing!

I’m all for provocation, but I’m with Rentaholic on this. And yes I’ve seen the show. It’s one thing to address an issue but another to resolve it.

I thought the director had quite a flair for staging and it elevated the quality of the production. The two lead actors lacked a bit of chemistry (I thought it might have been purposeful at first) but part of that had to do with the dialogue which felt at times like it was coming from a writer rather than the characters. The first half had momentum but I found my mind slowly going elsewhere in the second hour. Rachael Crowl was excellent; very natural. Loved her! The cast for the most part was solid. I would have preferred it if Mihir Kumar had been a bit more conversational, working with stillness and focus while he was in character. He had a tendency to bob his head back and forth while talking which made him seem like he was reciting lines. The actors spoke as themselves and then went in and out of playing characters. Mihir was better as himself. The convention of actors presenting a play was not necessarily new but I will say in this case it had a freshness to it. I also applaud the use of the upstage right and left doors that served as dressing rooms as well as other rooms when lights shifted. I had never seen that done before, and it was quite effective. The set design integrated itself effectively with the natural surroundings. I predict that gay theater companies in cities across the United States will be picking up this play and doing it at some point.

Jordan Catalano said: "I saw that Madonna attended the show the other day and posted a photo of herself with the cast - that’s got to be exceptionally cool for them."



OMG! They must have been in heaven!

Maybe my opinion would change if I can see the show - I can't. But I find the title and premise to be completely vulgar and tasteless. Call me old fashioned but 'faggot' is a highly provocative and triggering word for me because I associate it with homophobia and being bullied - as Prince George WAS bullied in a shocking way as mentioned in this thread from that image/images. I'm never going to 'reclaim' the word or whatever people do these days, I don't want to see the word ever again.

I don't like the idea that you would portray a real life person like this who is still a child - it would be different if they made it completely fictional with no association to a real person. Why make it about a real person?

I don't often play into negative stereotypes about American culture because I typically love it, but to me this is vulgar, low class and uncultured. I'm sure it's entertaining. If this ever makes it to London at least please change the title.

Updated On: 6/24/25 at 02:29 AM

It doesn't have to literally be about the nationality of the artists, the point is this kind of shocking vulgarity is on a New York stage so it is part of the American culture - and we could change the title to North American more broadly if you like. They wouldn't have been brave enough to start this in London at the Donmar, that's for sure (not that the Donmar would likely ever have presented it). Not with this title.

Updated On: 6/24/25 at 02:58 AM

You used “reductive” to pay homage to Queen Madge, didn’t you? ;)