I read the article by Hannah Simpson (‘I’m done with pretenders’: disabled actors on reclaiming Richard III, 30 January) with interest. I have a severe scoliosis and was born on the day Richard III was killed, 493 years later, so have always felt an affinity with him. Yet I have no problem with a non-disabled actor playing him. It does not offend me at all. I don’t get this idea that you can only play him if you have “lived experience”. If this was so important, it would mean only actors with scoliosis could take the part, because not all disabilities are the same, and people with different disabilities have different lived experiences. To suggest that any disabled actor can play him because all disabilities are experienced the same is surely more offensive than the tradition of non-disabled actors playing him.
I agree it is important that disabled actors get more roles – preferably roles where disability is irrelevant – but I disagree that a character with a disability should only be played by an actor with any disability.
Edie May-Bedell
Leeds
