In parallel, Prince Harry has begun a relationship with Jessica (Jess) Edwards, a working-class republican who has made him reconsider his desire to remain a member of the royal family.

Unwilling to face the rest of his life alone, Charles reluctantly abdicates in favour of William, who plans to sign the press bill and restore the status quo between the monarchy and Parliament, in addition to quelling the public unrest.

Prior to the joint coronation at Westminster Abbey, Harry meets with Jess and reluctantly informs her they can no longer be together, as their former plans would upset the status quo with the new king and his position in the public sphere.

The Mail on Sunday published claims by Rosa Monckton, a close friend of Diana, Princess of Wales, that the BBC was broadcasting irresponsible rumours concerning the paternity of Prince Harry.

"[7] The Tory MP Andrew Bridgen told The Mail on Sunday it was "unfortunate the BBC would seek to promote this flight of fantasy, which many licence-fee payers will find distasteful and which I believe denigrates and undermines our royal family.

"[8] Similarly, former Conservative defence minister Sir Gerald Howarth told The Daily Telegraph: "It is extraordinarily insensitive for an organisation which is so consumed with political correctness.

It is pure indulgence by the BBC to run a play featuring the demise of the sovereign and ascribing to a popular member of the Royal family [the Duchess of Cambridge] base motives.

"[9] John Whittingdale, a former Culture Secretary, publicly defended the show, writing in The Daily Telegraph: "If the BBC has commissioned a production of a decent play how can one possibly object to that?

"[9] Following the premiere, The Daily Express, The New York Times and The Belfast Telegraph drew attention to a number of viewers' responses, including demands that Pigott-Smith be given a posthumous BAFTA.

[12] Reviewing the programme for The Daily Telegraph, Jasper Rees gave it five stars, calling it "pure televisual gelignite", adding that, "In a towering performance, Pigott-Smith, who passed away last month, suggested unendurable agonies of conscience as events stripped him of his identity".

"[13] In The Guardian, Mark Lawson began his review by noting that, "Some newspaper coverage ahead of the BBC2 screening of King Charles III – a drama imagining a brief and catastrophic reign for the current Prince of Wales – gave the impression that ... the BBC director-general, should be held in the Tower of London awaiting execution for treason", but judged instead that "the summons he seems more likely to get is to next year's Bafta TV awards, where the BBC will surely be honoured for one of its boldest drama commissions".

Lawson finished his review by acknowledging that, "King Charles III, on TV, is two different things: an outrage for those who believe the monarchy should always be reverenced, especially by the BBC, but also a drama with the highest quality of acting, writing and filming.

What felt ingenious on stage occasionally clunks on screen, and while some of the strangeness fades as the gallop of Bartlett's story-telling takes off, it still feels hazardously close to the kind of fakespeare gimmickery that the original production side-stepped".