The beautiful diamonds and rubies were real, just like the king and the famous governess. But West End show The King and I is mostly lies, writes IAN LLOYD. No wonder they banned the show in Thailand, where the monarchy is revered!

The King and I, from legendary theater composers Rodgers and Hammerstein, is another West End hit, this time starring Call The Midwife’s Helen George.

The story concerns Anna Leonowens, a widow who traveled to Siam in the early 1860s to teach English to the wives and children of King Mongkut of Siam.

Although the musical and subsequent film are set more than 150 years ago, they are considered so controversial in Thailand – as Siam became known in 1959 – that the musical has been banned there for more than 70 years.

(An earlier 1946 film adaptation of the book was briefly shown in Siamese cinemas. It was the more irreverent musical that caused the outrage).

The main reason for the ban is that the Thai monarchy was completely revered until recently.

Criticism of this was taboo and draconian laws punished anyone who openly criticized the royal family.

People knelt when a royal car passed by and when King Bhumibol died in October 2016, after a reign of 70 years and 126 days (88 days less than Queen Elizabeth’s), his people wore black mourning for a year.

The musical with its brightly colored account of the relationship between king and master would cause problems among his subjects.

We see Anna trying to introduce Western ideals and culture to the royal court, in conflict with the unyielding King Mongkut.

The tension between the two masks their growing passion. There is also passion between one of the king’s wives and her lover, a romance that Anna helps to conceal.

In reality, King Mongkut was scientific and deeply religious. He had spent the first half of his life as a Buddhist monk and founded a new Buddhist order as well as a temple in Bangkok.

He spoke Western languages ​​and after becoming king in 1851 at a time when European countries sought greater influence in the east, he skillfully maintained Siam’s independence by working with these dominant nations rather than against them.

In her diaries, Queen Victoria gives us a glimpse of how Mongkut’s diplomacy certainly won her over.

In November 1857, seven envoys from Siam presented her with a gift ‘consisting of an oriental crown of gold and enamel, with diamonds, emeralds and rubies, a gold collar, thickly studded with rubies, a large star, a massive ring set with various precious stones. , a gold belt with rubies, a state chair or throne, a rare and valuable white shell, entirely set with jewels – an agate cup and saucer, a state sedan chair, a state saddle and bridle, a number of umbrellas, covered with gold embroidery, solid gold , boxes and cups, silver embossed trays, a metal drum and various other valuable jewelry.’

Not surprisingly, she was able to say to the envoys, “I was very pleased with the presents,” although she was amused by the deference shown to her.

‘When saying goodbye, the envoys crawled backwards all the way out of the room – it was really very difficult to keep face.’

Mongkut was known for his tolerance and open-mindedness and for his determination to modernize his country, which earned him the nickname “The Father of Science and Technology” in Siam.

Having been celibate until he became king at the age of 47, he soon made up for lost time by acquiring 32 wives and, by the time of his death, at the age of 64, a total of 82 children.

The desire for the latter to be educated in the Western tradition was the reason for hiring Anne Leonowens, who taught the royal children and built a strong relationship with the eldest son, Prince Chulalongkorn.

Anna was at court for only five years and returned to England in 1867, the year before Mongkut died, after contracting malaria while attending a large gathering to celebrate the 1868 solar eclipse in Wakor, a remote spot in western Thailand, to watch.

Two years later, Anna wrote her memoirs about her time at the royal court.

It was greatly exaggerated and controversially portrayed as a tyrant. She also falsified details about her own background, claiming she was born in Wales.

In fact, she was of mixed race – her mother was English and her father Indian – at a time when she was lower class, and being half Indian would have made her a social pariah.

She wasn’t even a real governess, as she was only engaged to teach the royal children English rather than give them a well-rounded education.

Anna’s memoirs angered the Siamese court.

Thirty years after she left office, Leonowens was reunited with King Chulalongkorn when he came to London during his European tour.

Although the king kindly thanked her for her teaching, he nevertheless criticized her memoirs and asked, “Why did you write such a bad book about my father, King Mongkut?” You know you made a complete fool of him.”

The unrepentant Anna replied that she had written “the whole truth” and that Mongkut had indeed been “a ridiculous and cruel, evil man.”

The royal consternation continued well into the next century.

During a visit to the United States in 1960, the monarch of Thailand, King Bhumibol, while admitting that he had not seen the musical, nevertheless claimed that, based on what he had been told, Mongkut’s portrayal seemed 90 percent exaggerated. My great-grandfather was actually a very mild and kind man.’

Strangely enough, even though the musical was banned in Thailand, Anna’s two volumes of memoirs have always appeared in print there, translated into Thai.

Leonowens’ time in Siam only became known with the publication of a 1944 biography by Margaret Landon called Anna and the King of Siam.

This became the basis of the 1951 musical that opened on Broadway to rave reviews for stars Yul Brynner and Gertrude Lawrence.

Two years later it moved to London in the coronation year of 1953, this time with Herbert Lom as Mongkut and Valerie Hobson as Anna.

It yielded no fewer than 926 performances. Princess Margaret visited several times and played the hits on her piano at Clarence House, later returning with the Queen Mother to see it again.

The film of the same name was released in 1956 and starred Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr.

There have been many revivals in Britain alone and the current show at the Dominion Theater is the sixth West End version of the musical, a testament to Rogers and Hammerstein’s truth-changing creativity.