The Queen Was in the Parlour: a romance in three acts is a play by the English writer Noël Coward. Although written in 1922 it was not produced until 24 August 1926, when it was premiered at the St Martin's Theatre.

The play is Coward's only venture into Ruritanian romance. It was well received, and ran for 136 performances. The play has not been revived in the West End.

In 1922 Coward was a rising playwright, but he had yet to become famous.^[1] He wrote The Queen Was in the Parlour in the spring of 1922 while staying in St Mary in the Marsh in Kent, and between its creation and its first production, four years later, it was given the title Nadya, and later Souvenir before the final title was adopted.^[2] By 1926 The Vortex (1924) and Hay Fever (1925) had made Coward's name,^[1] and the producer Basil Dean staged The Queen Was in the Parlour, directing it himself.^[3] The play opened at the St Martin's Theatre on 14 August 1926,^[4] and transferred to the Duke of York's Theatre on 4 October, running in total for 136 performances.^[5]

• Nadya – Madge Titheradge
• Sabien Pastal – Francis Lister
• Zana – Freda Godfrey
• General Krish – C. M. Hallard
• Miss Phipps – Ada King
• Court Usher – C. Disney Roebuck
• Prince Keri of Zalgar – Herbert Marshall
• Grand Duchess Emilie –Lady Tree

The Queen Was in the Parlour was revived at the Malvern Festival in 1932, by a company including Kate Cutler and the young James Mason. Mander and Mitchenson's Theatrical Companion to Noël Coward (2000) notes that there has never been a major London or New York revival.^[7]

The play has been adapted for film twice. An Anglo-German version under the original title, was filmed in 1927, starring Lili Damita and Paul Richter. It was premiered at the Avenue Pavilion, London February 1928.^[8] In 1933 an American film version, Tonight Is Ours starred Claudette Colbert and Fredric March.^[9]

The press expressed mild surprise that Coward, who had gained fame for his daringly controversial The Vortex, should turn to Ruritanian romance, but the reviews were generally friendly. The Times said "[T[his is Mr. Coward in romantic vein, and little else matters so long as the romance goes with a swing. This it does indeed."^[4] In The Daily Mail, Alan Parsons wrote, "It is all strong stuff, some of it witty stuff, some of it hot stuff, but Mr. Coward shows that he can construct what is known as a 'a well-made play' with the best of the Victorians.^[10] In The Observer, St John Ervine wrote:

Mr. Coward gives us both his best and his worst in generous measure. There are passages and even scenes in this play so poverty-stricken and dull that one has difficulty in believing that anybody wrote them. They are followed by passages and scenes so swiftly sincere and dramatic that one is certain that nobody but Mr. Coward could have written them. He tells a story here, and tells it very well, but he still shows signs of too great facility.^[11]

Looking back in the 1950s, Coward wrote:

It was my one and only expedition into Ruritania and I enjoyed it very much. Ruritania is a dangerous country where romantic clichés lurk in every throne-room, but at that time I was young and eager and valiantly oblivious of them. ... on the whole, I didn't make a bad job of it. The first act in Paris is a little forced and over-hectic, but the second and third acts contain some good moments. ... The whole play was illuminated by the magic of Madge Titheradge's acting. Her restrained emotion in the farewell supper scene ... and her stillness and dignity at the end of the play I shall always remember with loving gratitude.^[12]