NYT: It’s a Homophobic Slur. What’s It Doing in So Much Theater? — Page 2

RUkiddingme said: "I have seen the show and it's not about any real Prince George - it's about a fictitious Prince named George."

I believe it's about an imagined ("fictitious") future for the very real Prince George. (see: "Sex, drugs and S&M: hit play depicts Prince George as grown up and gay")

It’s one of my favorite words and I wear it proudly. It can’t hurt me because I’ve stripped it of that power by embracing it. That said, I wouldn’t use it in mixed company that I wasn’t sure would be comfortable because I know not everyone shares that perspective.

That NYT op ed is a whole lot of nothing. It’s a word used in some titles to provoke because we’re in a political climate that wants to censor anyone non-male, -white, and -heterosexual. If you don’t want use it in your day to day life, you’re free not to. But a play title isn’t going to harm you (nor Prince George, for that matter). Promise.

Updated On: 12/2/25 at 07:04 AM

While I don’t think Faggot has been broadly reclaimed in the LGBT community — it remains (at least to me and my circle of friends) a slur that homophobes use to put us down and not something we could call each other — the word doesn’t offend me in a title if used by LGBT writers.


Anyone who actually sees Prince Faggot and thinks it is exploitative is missing the entire point of the play and if they are LGBT have some internalized homophobia to work through. Those who haven’t seen the play should consider whether they should even be commenting about it.

RUkiddingme said: "I have seen the show and it's not about any real Prince George - it's about a fictitious Prince named George."

The point I'm making is that the phrase "prince faggot" is now associated with this real child in the public consciousness (well, that portion of the public that pays attention to off-Broadway theater). And "faggot" is a horrendous slur to most normal people.

I don't normally comment on shows I haven't seen, and I hesitate to do so here. But in this case the fact that I haven't seen it is part of the point: lots of people who haven't seen it now associate this horrible phrase with an actual person.

I would never advocate censoring anyone, incidentally. But criticizing speech is not censoring it.

kdogg36 said: "I don't normally comment on shows I haven't seen, and I hesitate to do so here. ."

Really? How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?

RUkiddingme said: "Really? How many rare comments are you going to hesitantly post then?"

I guess... just the two or three on this thread? I have no idea what you're getting at.

I have conflicted feelings over the use of this particular slur. I

Sutton Ross said: "The play was 100% inspired by a 2017 photoof Prince George of Wales. But this won't be going to Broadway, and if word does get back to the Palace (doubtful), they'll just off the playwright like they did Diana in 1997."

100% the Palace is **completely* aware of Prince Faggot.

I admit the article didn't, but this thread has made me analyze my feelings on the word.

My friends and I (various groups, even, though all Millennial) use it frequently. As a term of affection for ourselves, collectively or individually.

So, when I first read the play, I thought nothing of the title beyond the difficulties they might face marketing it.

But a straight cis femme friend of mine in conversation actually paused and asked if it was ok that she say the full title, that she felt odd. And I had strangely never thought of it before. (And it was perfectly fine.)

BJR said: "I admit the article didn't, but this thread has made me analyze my feelings on the word."

I completely agree. The same is true for me, as well.

Updated On: 12/3/25 at 11:52 PM

kdogg36 said: "The point I'm making is that the phrase "prince faggot" is now associated with this real child in the public consciousness [...] lots of people who haven't seen it now associate this horrible phrase with an actual person."

IMO, Jordan Tannahill completely negated any possible, laudable aspects of the play by creating an association to an underaged, minor child.

For as long as the play remains in the public zeitgeist, that minor child will have to contend with all of the characteristics and behaviors that have been unsolicited, and undeservedly linked to him by the playwright.

I find that to be unconscionable behavior by Jordan Tannahill. Actually, I think he's an a$$h*le.

Tannahill has written in some dialogue for self-protection. “'Yes, there’s a real child named George,' one performer says in the show’s opening moments. 'But obviously this is not his story, only he can write that for himself. This is our story.'” (source of quote: Prince Faggot delivers a royal reality check)

Does Tannahill not realize that by writing that "disclaimer" into the show, he's actually confirmed his intention to create a direct link between his play's character and the "real child named George"?

I don't find any of the graphic dialogue, subject matter, or depictions contained in Tannahill's play to be offensive. I find the playwrite himself to be disgusting and lacking a moral compass when it comes to behaving like an adult, socially-aware human being.

Agree with joevitus. If Prince Faggot had taken off in even the way Slave Play did (which I would argue was more smoke and mirrors driven by the JOH PR machine than actual public interest), I would say there’s perhaps a possibility word could get back to the Palace and we’d be having a larger conversation. Far as I can tell, the Royal Family has issued no such commentary. As it is, it was a show that got lucky in a small theater to be transferred for a short run to another small theater. I sincerely doubt we even see a West Coast production, let alone anything longer-term.

And again, for the millionth time, it is not a play about sexualizing a child and the “disclaimer” in the show is not apologizing for its content; it’s to help the people in the audience chill out who do think it’s going to be a play about a child having sex.

Updated On: 12/3/25 at 10:12 AM