Almost didn't watch this based on the reviews on this page but so glad I did, it's an excellent piece of Shakespearean drama. The performances are excellent, Piggot-Smith is the standout, and it's satisfyingly short and efficient in its storytelling. As far as I can tell many of the criticisms either come from offended monarchists or people who didn't like the blank verse dialogue and unrealistic plot. Although I can see why these would be issues for some people, I think they are inherent to it's pho-Shakespearean nature, it's not pretending to be an accurate and earnest take on the monarchy, it merely uses them it as setting and the Royals as very loosely based caricatures. Go in expecting Shakespeare in a modern context, not a realistic drama about the monarchy.

This film got off to a bad start for me by having Camilla explain succession law to her princely stepsons. Since they're in line to inherit the throne it would not have to be explained to them at the queen's funeral. A good film tells a story one can believe and what follows is a script that suspends belief on too many occasions. As a play one can accept the high drama as a fictional account of Charles's future reign; the audience pulled in by an intimate view of the royals and various perfidies. Its attempt to give personality to other royal family members with far-fetched characterizations however made it more farce than drama. As a film it presents as false and cheaply melodramatic.I can praise the sets and some of the performances, but the story line was more laughable than intended.

If you are going to portray the monarchy in such a light, there are better ways to undermine it...Like factually.The name is enough for anyone with a clue not to bother.Charles is on the record as saying he will take the name George VII should his mother not outlive him. Yes, that's right, it's not an automatic naming system... Which is probably good as the king who fought Hitler would've been King Bertie the 1st.If they can't be bothered to even get the basics correct, why should we bother to watch? Unless you believe in alternative facts. Which over 40% of Americans apparently do now and this is written for such people. Only issue is that people who watch fox news are going to have trouble following the pseudo Shakespearean language. Obviously not going to be a box office spectacular.

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.