Britain's Prince Charles in London on Feb. 9. (Jusin Tallis/Pool photo via Associated Press)

Peter Marks’s Feb. 18 theater review “ ‘Charles III’ looks at the king-to-be or not-to-be” [Style] was entertaining. But the drama and the review failed to note that the accession of Prince Charles would remind many in Britain of something that they do not want to remember. Historians are in widespread agreement that the Stuart monarchs were misguided and costly for England. Like his corrupt father, James I, who sought a dynastic union with Spain, Charles I sowed the seeds of the civil war that resulted in his execution in 1649.

And that is not all. The entire Stuart line from which the current queen derives her claim to the throne was legally excluded from the succession (until the restoration of Charles II in 1660). James’s bizarre succession in 1603 was tainted because he was complicit in the treasonous Essex Rebellion in 1601 to put him on the throne — a fact that explains why the first Queen Elizabeth refused to bless him as her successor. All these inconvenient, embarrassing and long-suppressed historical truths will come to the surface if there is ever a Charles III.

Peter Dickson, Arlington