It is a truth universally acknowledged that Dominic West was rather badly miscast as Prince Charles in The Crown. In fact, the two people bear absolutely no resemblance at all. If you locked them in a room of mirrors together for a thousand years, not once would one of them suggest that they may look vaguely similar.
And what an unfortunate predicament, given how we are reminded of it every single time West appears on screen, which is quite a lot. It's only further reinforced by how well Elizabeth Debicki, despite being an Australian of genuine model proportions, slips into the role of Diana, her kohl-lined blue eyes a dead ringer for the Princess of Wales'.
Sure, West has got the voice and the stance down, but there are Royal movement and vocal coaches for that. And after such a winning streak of casting for The Crown, it really is a jarring choice, especially now we're back into season six, with a host of new doppelgangers, and Debicki looking more and more settled as Di.
Many have attempted to explain why this casting feels so wrong, to unpick the internal discordance that ensues when a tweed-clad West is on screen saying "yes" like how normal people say "ears".
A tweet from last year, when season five was released, posited that it's because he is simply too famous to be anyone by Dominic West. The tweet read: "Actually think Imelda Staunton is fine as the queen, like I think she looks great. But Dominic West looks nothing like Charles… he’s a great actor but every turn I look at him I’m like 'that’s Dominic West.'"
Others have said it's because of West's rather distinctive features, which don't match up Charles' own - totally different - distinctive features. There is a theory that floats around the internet from time to time, decreeing that people are one of two things, a frog or a rat. Harry Styles: frog, Phoebe Waller Bridge: rat, Zendaya: frog, Timothée Chalamet: rat, and so on, so forth.
So there's another problem. Dominic West is a frog, while Prince Charles is indisputably a rat. This unavoidable scientific fact isn't helped by the reality that Josh O'Connor, who previously played Prince Charles, is a stone-cold, by-the-book, not-a-doubt-in-anyone's-mind rat.
But it's not that, not really. To put it simply, the real reason is that Dominic West is just far too fit to play Charles. Sorry to this man, aka the King, but he just isn't anywhere near Dominic West's level. I doubt this will bother King Charles III much, given that he never wanted to be an actor, has (infamously) had no issues scoring with the ladies and only really cares about sustainable farming and climate change anyway.
But I do think it needs to be acknowledged as the real reason that casting gives us the heebie jeebies. Anyone who watched Dominic West in Pride, a film in which he wins over a bunch of flagrant homophobes by dancing out the demons to a disco track entitled "Shame, Shame, Shame", all the while rocking some pretty gnarly bleach blonde frosted tips, should have known he could never play King Charles. These two roles are mutually exclusive.
In fact, West could have even laid some claim to Bond had he wished to. These two roles are also mutually exclusive. No man who can play Bond, can play Charles, and not just because it makes the whole "On His Majesty's Secret Service," thing desperately confusing.
It is clear as day that West is too much of a Zaddy (read: a sexually attractive man, especially an older one who is fashionable or charismatic) to play the King, and I don't mean any offense by that. I think Charles would rather die than identify as a Zaddy.
So let's separate the two: The Crown's yassified, commanding Prince Charles, and our kilt-wearing, farm-loving, economically-inclined King. Out of all the headlines, all the controversy, this is the one thing that has finally tipped The Crown's believability over the edge: now I really believe it's a work of fiction.
