rolandkavanagh If I could give this -10 I would.CANNOT believe that the monarch who stands up against the government (who want to censor the freedom of the press) is made out to be the evil character.I was expecting at every turn for this delusion to be corrected, that the populace would support the monarchy over the government, but no.Typical BBC garbage propaganda. The biggest irony is that a BBC produced piece was in support of press censorship... Says it all.The chap that played Charles III was a very good actor however and put in a good performance. So much so that I am still in shock that he was the "bad guy". Make sure you listen to his words closely, at least on that part, the script was somewhat decent. Again, so difficult to understand how or why we are supposed to be against him.Also if you MUST watch it, then please do so illegally and don't pay a penny to the BBC for the privilege.

adam This was not a great movie. It tried very, very hard to channel Macbeth and mostly failed. The entire premise of the cause of the constitutional crisis was unbelievable to me, as was the near total isolation of the king. It ended much better than it began, with a surprisingly emotional scene involving signing a form. Kate's turn towards Machiavellianism was also a nice idea but poorly executed, in my mind. I'm hardly a die-hard monarchist, but I felt the entire thing was both ill-conceived from the beginning and flawed in execution. Tim Pigott- Smith's performance was a rare strong point as was the love story of Harry.

chrispowers1976 Although this play had an excellent cast I found it predictable; mainly because it draws extensively, if not totally, on two British dramas from the 1990s.To Play The King was the second part of the original House of Cards trilogy, broadcast in 1993 and featured a future king, played by Michael Kitchen doing an impeccable Prince Charles impersonation, at odds with the Prime Minister and lead character of the series.The Student Prince was broadcast around 1997/8 and told the story of the bodyguard assigned to protect the prince/ future king who had gone to study at university, (clearly based on William). In the end the prince ends the succession and becomes a 'commoner' in the new republic, (similar to Harry's story line in this play).The BBC's decision to film this play, which in my opinion is better suited to the stage, suggests to me a desire to attract an American audience and boost viewing figures on their BBC America channel.

ianlouisiana Behold the king.As yet uncrown'd;his beloved mother,a clever and subtle queen loved by her people recently dead. He is weak,vain,embittered ;a vaunting ambition to execute his own will even to the detriment of his people's. Two princes:one of serious mien with a wife keen for power.The other a jackanapes set on earthly pleasures before duty. As their father waits to assume the trappings of kinghood they plot to steal the throne. Bernard Levin wrote a clever poem comprised entirely of quotes from William Shakespeare. It was very popular.People understood it. Quite why there is an assumption on some writers' parts that the viewing public would not "get" a 21st century play written in part in blank verse I am not sure.I think these writers are underestimating the intelligence of the audience. I thought "King Charles the third" was rather elegantly done. We all know the Royals don't occupy the same planet as the rest of us. This play merely confirmed that. Monarchist or Republican,there is nothing in it to change your point of view. Just enjoy the magnificent Mr T.Piggot - Smith having a whale of a time and enunciating beautifully as the spoiled 70 -odd year old new king. He and Miss C.Riley use the speech patterns most successfully . The conscience of the king proves to be his downfall. Aided and abetted by the Prime minister and the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Charles would have been justified in saying " A pox on both your houses".