A Mary Poppins Controversy That Says Everything About Theatre Nepotism

by Chris Peterson

There are few things in theatre more demoralizing than being told merit matters, only to watch someone else get what they want because of who they’re related to.

We usually dress that up as “artistic vision” or “director’s choice.” But sometimes it is exactly what it appears to be: nepotism. And if you’ve been on the receiving end of it, you know it does not just sting in the moment. It changes how you see theatre.

I recently received a tip about a Northeast high school production of Mary Poppins, where the director apparently reassigned both “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” and “Feed the Birds” to their daughter in the cast, rather than to the student who was actually playing Mary Poppins.

That is not artistic vision; that is favoritism with a creative excuse attached to it. It’s also a violation of licensing agreements, but more on that later. 

Because what does that choice actually say to the student cast as Mary? You can have the title, but not the full role. You can do the work, earn the part, and still have key moments taken away because someone else had better access to the person in charge. That is not just unfair, it is humiliating.

And for a young performer, that kind of thing lingers.

I know that because I have been on the other side of it. Growing up, I regularly lost roles to the son of my high school’s theatre director. He was talented, and that is worth saying. But that is part of what makes nepotism so maddening. It leaves you wondering whether you were truly beaten fairly or whether the outcome was decided before you even walked into the audition.

That uncertainty can do real damage.

Theatre already asks young people to learn how to handle rejection. That is part of the deal. You do not get every role, and ideally you learn how to deal with disappointment, support the show, and come back stronger next time. That is a valuable lesson.

What is not valuable is watching an adult bend the rules to spare their own child from that lesson.

And the rest of the cast notices all of it.

This is why people are wrong when they dismiss nepotism in school or community theatre as minor. When adults abuse that trust, they teach the worst possible lesson: that fairness is conditional, and power matters more than integrity.

If you are directing your own child, your obligation to be fair should be even greater. The minute the room starts to feel like your child is being treated differently, you have lost credibility. And once that trust is gone, it is incredibly hard to get back.

As I mentioned earlier about the licensing, this is where this particular story gets more serious. If this production was licensed through MTI or Disney Theatrical Licensing, the show must be performed “as is,” and producers and directors have no right to make changes unless they first obtain written permission. 

That matters because reassigning major material from one character to another is not a harmless little tweak. If songs or solo sections written for Mary Poppins were shifted to another performer without authorization may also raise real copyright concerns for the licensing companies. 

How terrible would it be if MTI barred a school from future licensing(yes, this happens) just because a director wanted to appease their own child?

Theatre can survive a lot, but what it struggles to survive is the moment people stop believing the process means anything.

That is what nepotism really takes from people. Not just the role. Not just the song. The belief that they ever had a fair shot.

Let’s not make this a trend. We do not need a future school production of Hamilton where Eliza gets cast, only to have half her material quietly handed off to the director’s kid.