The World’s Most Powerful Prince, review: the inside track on Saudi’s erratic, ruthless ruler

‘The Kingdom: The World’s Most Powerful Prince’ charts the rise of the formidable, controversial MBS

As the seventh child of the 25th son of the founder and first absolute monarch of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman was not destined for the throne when he entered politics as a 24-year-old in 2009. But in the past decade this peripheral scion of the ruling dynasty has established himself as a central, towering figure, both at home — where he has been de facto leader as crown prince since 2017 — and on the world stage.

A new two-part BBC documentary, The Kingdom: The World’s Most Powerful Prince, draws on the insights of biographers, journalists, diplomats, spies, confidants and dissidents to chart Prince Mohammed’s remarkable rise and to break down the multitude of facets of “MBS”.

The first episode, which traces the period leading up to Prince Mohammed’s appointment as heir apparent to his father, ailing head of state King Salman bin Abdulaziz, has the makings of a prestige drama with its plots, political manoeuvres and power struggles within the extended royal family. But the claim by exiled former official Saad al-Jabri that Prince Mohammed forged his father’s signature on a royal decree sanctioning military interventions in Yemen in 2015 is both revelatory and potentially deeply damaging. (The Saudi authorities did not respond to a request for comment about this allegation.)

The second episode discusses one of the darkest chapters of MBS’s rule — the brutal murder of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. While Prince Mohammed has repeatedly denied direct responsibility, with Riyadh blaming the killing on a rogue operation, the documentary considers why the international community, and the US in particular, has been hesitant in holding the Saudi regime to account over this and myriad other accusations of human rights abuse, press suppression and detentions.

But this show is more than a catalogue of controversies. Alongside chilling allegations are reflections on how Prince Mohammed has loosened the religious orthodoxy’s grip on the country, granted more rights to women, diversified the economy and brought world-leading sport and record-breaking art acquisitions to entertain locals, entice tourists and distract everyone from the more unsavoury aspects of the regime.

If across its two hours Kingdom paints a vivid portrait of a Machiavellian prince, it leaves us with a rather hazier image of who Prince Mohammed is outside of the public eye or political arena. If he was something of an unknown early in his career, the impression is that he is now unknowable, unpredictable — and all the more formidable for it.

Episode one available on BBC iPlayer now. Episode two airs on BBC2 on August 26 at 9pm

Is the theatre interval becoming a thing of the past?

Lasting Covid impact and need to attract audiences behind move to performances running straight through

A Chorus Line at Sadlers Wells in London is a musical with no interval

For some it’s an indispensable part of their night at the theatre, a chance to top up a glass of wine, quickly appraise the plot and, crucially, to pop to the loo. To others it’s an interruption that impedes the drama and makes the eventual train home an even later.

Now it appears the contentious nature of the theatre interval is giving producers their own pause for thought.

With more and more shows being staged across London without breaks – from Slave Play at the Noël Coward to The Years at the Almeida – experts say changing audience habits and a desire for fully immersive theatre are behind the shift.

“It’s a surprising development given that revenue from bar sales is such a vital source of income for most theatres,” said James Rowson, a lecturer in theatre and cultural policy at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama. “Especially when so many theatre buildings are currently under increasing financial pressures as a result of funding cuts and the cost of living crisis.”

Rowson said the shift could be a hangover from the pandemic, when many people fell out of the habit of attending the theatre. “It could well be that by staging productions without intervals and cutting running times, theatres are attempting to win back hesitant members of the public and establish a new generation of theatregoers.”

This, he added, could “re-establish theatre in the night-time ecology in a more flexible way by allowing theatregoers to build watching a show into a night out with other activities, or simply make it home from a show earlier”.

Over the past four years, much has been written about whether the era of intervals is over. Writing in the Stage, Lyn Gardner called intervals an “outmoded, unnecessary theatre convention”.

After lockdown, the Globe took a more relaxed approach to intervals. Its artistic director, Michelle Terry, said Shakespeare’s plays were “never written with intervals, so we won’t play them with intervals”.

“The no-interval show definitely seemed to be born out of necessity over the pandemic, with its smaller casts and shorter running time,” Guardian theatre critic Arifa Akbar said.

“And to my mind it is still partly an insurance policy against the pandemic effect – Covid hasn’t stopped having a disruptive effect on the industry, as we saw in the number of shows hit by illness again this summer.

“But it has become its own art form too. There is a fast and furious energy to these shows that will definitely appeal to a younger generation. There are also some shows, such as The Years, where an interval would feel like an interruption to their pace and intensity.”

Theatre producer Kenny Wax, who has two musicals playing in London without intervals – Six (Vaudeville Theatre) and Fantastically Great Women Who Changed the World (The Other Palace) – said his decision was an artistic one.

“In the case of both of those productions, which have a running time around the 80-85-minute mark, it would slow down the momentum of the journey and there isn’t really a natural place for a break,” he said.

Wax explained how each decision was also based on the venue. For example, The Play That Goes Wrong by the Mischief Theatre Company was originally written as a one-act play that ran at Trafalgar Studio 2.

But to make the play “commercial”, he decided to book a UK tour of regional venues. “It’s easier to sell a production into those regional theatres if the shows have an interval because they rely on bar sales as a valuable source of income.

“Some venues charge the producer a ‘no-interval financial penalty’ for not having an interval. They regard it as an income to balance up the loss in bar sales.”

Only the strongest titles, such as Six and Stephen Daldry’s multi-award-winning NT production of An Inspector Calls, have the bargaining power to cut a deal, Wax said – which goes some way to explaining why a lot of shows without intervals seem to feature big name stars such as Kit Harington or Jodie Comer.

“If the venue needs the show more than the show needs a particular venue, the producer has the upper hand and can usually get the penalty clause struck out.”

Max Webster, who is directing Macbeth, starring David Tennant, at the Harold Pinter theatre, said he chose to skip the interval to create an experience “that immerses an audience into a world”. During the play, audience members are also made to wear headphones.

“I felt that not letting them come up for air would be a good way to make an intense and exciting experience,” Webster said.

But anecdotally, theatregoers across the capital have complained about attending shows where their viewing experience has been disrupted by other people’s constant trips to the bathroom.

Webster acknowledged the benefits of intervals. But ultimately, he believed the decision depended on the play. “What I like is, there’s an increasing flexibility of us being allowed to try and find the best shape of an evening that suits the story we’re trying to tell,” he said.

Mark Hutchings, author of Approaching the Interval in Early Modern Theatre, said historically, intervals provided the opportunity to put on entertainment such as music and dancing.

In the “Shakespearean” period, he added, the structure of plays was dictated by light.

Outdoor plays were sunlit and therefore ran without interruption. But indoors, candles were needed, and breaks were necessary to mend and snuff them.

Though Hutchings said some critics might think intervals are a “pain in the neck” or that they “zap the buzz”, he prefers them because they provide an opportunity to discuss the play with fellow audience members or stretch your legs.

“The interval is always much more than a gap,” he said. “A cynic would say you can even walk out.”

Why do the videos of the Sussexes’ faux royal tour not have sound?

Normally royal walkabouts are a jolly affair involving handshaking, bouquet giving and, above all, pleasantry-exchanging.

Since the late Queen first decided to meet crowds rather than wave from a passing car, they have become part of our nation’s fabric.

But Harry and Meghan do things differently. As their Colombia sojourn demonstrated, they prefer as little interaction with the public as possible. And it seems that on the rare occasions the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do meet ordinary folk, they aim to ensure their exchanges aren’t overheard.

So tightly controlled was their faux royal tour that video of these alltoo-brief encounters was released to the media without sound.

It might have been instructive, for instance, to hear what the couple said to pupils during a visit to a school in Bogota on the first day of their tour. Instead the video showed only their lips moving.

Next day there was more of the same when Harry played sit-down volleyball with Invictus games athletes in the capital. How different to a near-identical event three months earlier in Nigeria when reporters were privy to the Duke’s every word. And it might have been nice to hear the couple celebrating African culture during their visit to Palenque de San Basilio, a village founded by former slaves four centuries ago.

The Sussexes’ silent movies didn’t exactly sit neatly with Meghan’s sermonising on self-expression during a forum on ‘Afro women and power’ for instance on the last day of the tour. No matter. Having stepped down from royal duties four years ago, perhaps they feel normal rules don’t apply.

The reasons for this lack of transparency are not immediately clear. While the Duke and Duchess are apt to wash their dirty linen in public – think the soul-baring oprah Winfrey interview and Harry’s tell-all memoir – it is not as if they are in the habit of divulging state secrets to well-wishers.

Abundantly apparent on this tour, however, was a desire to ensure their engagements received as little outside scrutiny as possible. To that end, they selected a trusted magazine writer to accompany them and deliver unfailingly flattering accounts of their activities to the rest of the media, which, at best, got an occasional fleeting glimpse of the runaway royals.

The tour was organised by Harry and Meghan’s Archewell Foundation and the Colombian vice president’s team. Francia Marquez is the first black female to hold that post and was called ‘my friend’ by Meghan during one of the few speeches accompanied by sound.

Information about the trip was posted daily on WhatsApp by the VP’s office. But several journalists whose coverage caused displeasure were unceremoniously removed from the group.

others were reprimanded for daring to ask questions of a head teacher – even though they were freely answered – whose school the Sussexes visited in Cartagena.

What the couple, now back home in California, managed to achieve remains unclear. Critics called it a publicity stunt for both the Sussexes and Ms Marquez.

In a country where 42 per cent of the population live below the poverty line, questions are already being raised about the costs. ‘The bill for security will be astronomical – a fact people will not easily forget,’ said an opposition politician.

Many locals had never heard of the couple until their arrival. While the Sussexes experienced local culture and discussed cyber-bullying and mental health online, other more pressing issues were ignored.

Colombia faces economic and social issues with high levels of crime – and the Foreign office advises against all but essential travel in much of the nation

Right-wing senator and 2026 presidential hopeful Maria Fernanda Cabal said the trip ‘brought absolutely no cultural exchange or anything of the sort.

‘It is part of the showmanship of a vice president who is disconnected from the reality of the country,’ she added.

Read More

Meghan Markle wore more than £90,000 of clothes and jewellery in four days during faux royal tour of Colombia with Prince Harry