Well, what can I do here apart from expressing my belief that an awful lot of reviewers appear to have missed the point somewhat.

I think that the current Prince Charles is a very fine and honest human being who will do a great job as monarch when HM the Q finally leaves this world. I hope that doesn't happen any time soon but, at her current age of 94, one has to suppose that her days might be numbered.

I liked this telemovie very, very much. I thought that Tim Pigott-Smith and Margot Leicester were especially good and very convincing as Charles and Camilla.

What, I wonder, is so hard for many reviewers to accept that a man of clear principle and good conscience such as Charles might refuse Royal Assent to a Bill that sought to limit the freedom of the press and, evidently, to make it a criminal offence for reporters to do what reporters do now without fear of being thrown into gaol.

Frankly, although refusal of Royal Assent does not evidently happen in practice, I would hope that a British monarch would refuse Assent to a Bill such as that briefly described here in this movie.

I also have great difficulty in accepting that such a Bill would in fact pass both houses of Parliament in the UK anyway. Freedom of the press is something that every thinking person should support despite some in the media's preparedness to abuse it. Freedom of the press is, after all, what separates civilized Government from left or right wing dictatorship.

I liked the use of Shakespearean style dialogue here and it is clear to me that "King Charles III" is in fact something of an update to Shakespeare's Macbeth. Clearly, Kate is the nasty piece of work in Lady Macbeth, Charles is King Duncan and William is Macbeth himself, a bit soft but motivated to dreadful acts by his wife.

All in all, I really rated this movie and I will watch it often. When he becomes King, I think the current Prince Charles may very well be the first British monarch to refuse Royal Assent, assuming that that has never before happened.

"What if?"

It is that question that lies at the heart of all storytelling. No matter the medium, no matter what the genre, it all comes back to that same basic question. King Charles III is no exception that rule. Indeed it is a prime example of it being a self-described "future history play" in the words of its writer Mike Bartlett. Adapted from his 2014 stage play for the BBC and shown here in the United States on PBS, the TV film adaptation is an interesting piece of work to say the least.

The basic premise is a simple one. After a lifetime of waiting to be crowned king, Charles finally takes the throne. His reign though is not to be a peaceful one as Bartlett imagines the crisis that breaks out when the new king finds himself caught in a moral quandary regarding a law he does not agree with that could damage the freedom of the press. Given recent events on both sides of the Pond, it's a story that has that eerie sense of being on the cusp of reality despite being something of an alternate history work. More than that, Bartlett takes in the notion of Shakespearean tragedy along the way as well with themes familiar with anyone who has ever experienced any of the plays dealing with English history.

Plus, it's given that extra added something by Bartlett's dialogue. Taking the themes of Shakespearean tragedy one step further, the dialogue is written and performed in blank verse. The result may be jarring for viewers not expecting it but no one ever drops a "thou" or speaks in too anachronistic a fashion that it becomes implausible. Indeed, once one's ear attunes to it, it makes for an interesting experience as Bartlett gives Charles soliloquies to speak and character's express their thoughts and passions in ways the viewer is not likely to expect. The result further reinforces the idea of a "future history play" in the Shakespeare tradition.

There's also some fine performances on display as well. The sadly late Tim Pigott-Smith in the title role dominates from the moment he gives his first soliloquy right through to the very last shot. Pigott-Smith plays Charles as a man born into duty finally given the chance to fulfill his perceived destiny only to be caught in a quandary that is part moral and part political. The past is never too far for Pigott- Smith's Charles, haunted figuratively and perhaps literally by the spectres of the two major women in his life and the question of what the role of a monarch is in today's world, something that the actor brings to life superbly. It is an extraordinary performance and one that stands as a fine tribute to the late actor.

The supporting cast is strong as well with many actors involved in various productions of the play playing roles. Oliver Chris and Richard Goulding play the Princes William and Harry who find themselves caught up in events and trying to find their own way as a result. There's Margot Leicester as Camilla and Adam James as the fictional Prime Minister both reprising their stage roles while the gender swapping of a role gives actress Nyasha Hatendi the chance to play Stevens, the head of the Opposition party in Parliament. The biggest surprise though comes from an actress not previously involved in any other production of the play: Charlotte Riley as Kate Middleton. Riley packs in a surprisingly powerful performance including a major monologue that draws parallels with one of the Bard's greatest female characters (a role that I find myself now wishing for Riley to play). The results as solid across the board.

Between Bartlett's script and the performances, King Charles III makes for a solid piece of drama. It also stands as a fine example of how to bring something from the stage that could be perceived as too highbrow and adapt into a new medium. It also stands as tribute to a fine actor who left one final, amazing performance behind. Or to put it another way: it is well worth a watch if you've got the ninety minutes to spare.

The drama first appeared on stage in London, England and later on Broadway in New York City. It was overshadowed by other productions for the Tony Awards. I would have liked to have seen this production though. Tim Pigott-Smith should be awarded Knighthood and Prince Charles should be the officiant during the investiture ceremony at Buckingham Palace. Pigot-Smith's performance as Prince Charles is sympathetic, multi-layered and in-depth perhaps the best performance in his lifetime. Pigott-Smith does a terrific job in every scene as the long awaited heir to the British throne. Margot Leicester also does a terrific job as his second wife, Camilla, who supports her husband. Princes William and Harry don't fare well at all. This play has become Shakespearean with Kate as Lady Macbeth; William as Macbeth or one of King Lear's Goneril or Reagan and Harry the spare who wants love and life away from the palace. Charles is very much like King Lear here. Although only in 90 minutes, this film packs a true punch in the British psyche of the events surrounding the loss of the Queen and the monarchy. I know that the events are unlikely to enfold. Charles will be king even for a short time. When the time is right, it will be William and Kate's turn. As for the turmoil in Britain, brexit has a lot to do with it. The monarch's powers are limited and the prime minister only consults with the king or queen. The monarch are just figureheads. If only they could stop brexit, then they would show their true power.