What really happened at the end: Alan Plater and Chris Mullin

When I first watched A Very British Coup in the late 80s, I was intrigued by the somewhat ambiguous ending, so intrigued that I wrote to Alan Plater, one of the writers of the mini-series. I was hoping he would explain and I was thrilled that he took the time to write to me and explain (letter dated 7 Feb 1990):

Spoiler alert:


"We had long hours of talks along the way but essentially it was my idea that Perkins shouldn't resign but should go to the country and tell the truth; and Mick Jackson's idea that the election should be held in the shadow of a possible military takeover.

The ending was deliberately ambiguous and I have no idea what happens next!"

So that explains it - from the writer himself.

I also wrote to co-writer Chris Mullin (he also wrote the book on which the mini-series is based) and in his letter dated 19 February 1990 he kindly explained:

Spoiler alert:

"You ask about the hint at the end of the film of a possible military coup. The end of the film is deliberately vague in order to leave open a number of possibilities, of which a military coup is one. You will recall that there is also a line from a BBC World Service news bulletin, which says, 'A statement is expected today from Buckingham Palace.....' In other words, the Queen is not necessarily obliged to call the leader of the largest party after an election. She could, for example, call Wainwright in the hope that he could put together a Government comprising right-wing Labour rebels, with the support of other parties, including Conservatives."

Mr Mullin also wrote he preferred Mr Plater's ending in the film to the one in his book. Wainwright is Perkin's arch-rival and the one whom Perkins fired from the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer.