Love them or loathe them, we all think we know the Royals. We nod when they live up to how we perceive them and we discount any evidence to the contrary. It was inevitable that this play would attract a certain amount of media attention. I expected it to be interesting; I didn’t expect it to be moving.

The play is set in an immediately post-Queen world, in which the family is in mourning and the coronation is a long way away. (Philip having predeceased the Queen). Charles, somewhat cluelessly and certainly unwisely, is manipulated into a confrontation with Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition (Nicholas Rowe, suitably two-faced) on the pertinent topic of privacy. This is the least plausible aspect of the play for me, but to a certain extent it doesn’t really matter, as the debate is an interesting one and leads to thought-provoking results.

To a certain extent you forget that you are watching a play about the royals we know, and it becomes a play about a family like any other. Oliver Chris is tall, blond and a little dull as William (so probably quite accurate). Lydia Wilson is a cunning Kate, which is very amusing to watch although again, implausible. A woman who has spent her adult life essentially without a job is unlikely to harbour Lady Macbeth-style plans. Richard Goulding makes a sympathetic Harry, who has an adventure of his own involving a working class girl, well played by Tafline Steen. Margot Leicester is loyal as Camilla, but the character is underdeveloped. Adam James is an honourable Prime Minister (the politicians are not drawn from reality).

Tim Piggott-Smith is an absolute revelation as Charles. He does not stoop to doing an impersonation, but inhabits the character fully. On occasion he will turn around and the expression will be uncannily like Charles, but it is because he has disappeared completely into the character. He is forthright, stubborn and, at the end, very moving.

The play itself is very good, but somewhat uneven. Written in iambic pentameter, which sits a little uneasily with modern speech, it is often very funny. The tone in the second act is variable, and sometimes you are not sure if you are meant to laugh or not. There were some uncomfortable laughs that I suspect were unintentional. However, the substance of the play is pertinent. In the battle for supremacy between freedom of speech and privacy, how should the balance be struck? In the USA, freedom of speech has clearly won, but in Europe, it is less clear cut.

The production is cleverly done, with the Almeida stripped away to the brickwork and the action taking place on a raised plinth. It will be interesting to see how it is done when it transfers to the West End. There is also effective use of music throughout, and it emphasises how important music is to the atmosphere of pageantry on which the Royal family depends. Highly recommended, it is sold out at the Almeida but the transfer begins at the Wyndham’s in September.