This show has, against all odds, proved to be one of the most controversial on the Fringe. The question "Will he light up?" has buzzed around this newly-sanctimonious smoke-free city. With the threats of fines and closure hanging over the show and even the venue, Winston S Churchill's Romeo y Julieta remains virginally perfect throughout this 90 minute history lesson.
Allegiance features a supposed re-creation of a meeting between Lloyd George's new minister for Ireland (and the Middle East) and his Irish counterpart in talks to seek peace in the revolutionary country to the West during 1920/1.
Michael Collins is now almost as well known as his older host, courtesy of a feature film biography. The 30 year old is a romantic hero to many of the English but, in reality, a guerrilla or terrorist who has turned to politics.
Mel Smith very much looks the part as Churchill in wing collar and bow tie and seems completely at home in the wide study that looks like something straight from a dusty stately home. The only thing missing as his lower lip juts like that of a sulking child is that ubiquitous cigar to rest on it.
By way of contrast, the young buck who has come to visit wears a light grey three piece suit and red tie. Unusually for the period, he also swears in front of the minister like a trooper and treats his duellist like an affectionate friend rather than a great statesman.
After some initially frosty skirmishes the pair get down to negotiations but can seem lost in exposition as Mary Kenny ensures that her audience (very mature for the Fringe) gets a full introduction to a very complex subject.
This consists of some serious biography of both men, a brief history of British imperialism and the tragedy of Ireland.
The two men then try to solve their differences and do so to such an extent that they are on "Young Michael" and "Winston" terms by the time that a treaty, which will never come into force is agreed.
Allegiance works up to a point. Mel Smith is convincing as Churchill and Michael Fassbender is a charming Collins. However, their discussions and use of language stretch credibility on too many occasions thus rendering the play far more of a history lesson and star vehicle than should have been the case.