I am a "royal loyal". I believe Prince Charles will be the next King, but I think Prince William will make a better King. I think the "Diana" factor is Prince Charles' "kiss of death". Let's hope it's not the monarchy's.

I was very disappointed in today's episode of Doc Zone; I turned the television off as I felt like I was watching some celebrity gossip show. The Royal family is made up of ordinary people, who live under extra-ordinary circumstances - the scrutiny of the public eye. To continue to flog old news stories, old video clips, and magic dust cloths that turn blue when sprinkled with cocaine shows very poor judgment. I had hoped for something better from this program.

Very disappointed with the documentary. It fails utterly to discuss the constitutional role of the crown and is heavy-handed and unfair in its bias. Indeed, the sloppy research that went into its making is striking. E.g., the claim is made that the decision to award MBEs to the Beatles in 1965 was made by Buck House in a cynical ploy to boost the monarchy's popularity with the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. All such awards are made on the recommendation of the government of the day. Harold Wilson's government made the decision to honour the Beatles in this way. It had nothing to do with the Queen!

There are several other false and misleading claims made in this so-called documentary, which I intend to detail shortly.

Very disappointed in the CBC for airing such rubbish.

This documentary essentially makes the argument that the monarchy is an expensive anachronism, unloved by the people and doomed to die out after the death of Elizabeth.

The same argument applies more aptly to the CBC. I expected a more balanced and mature argument from Canada's public broadcaster about the future of the constitutional monarchy in Canada. It is a fair question, after all.

Instead, I was treated to a shallow and sensationalist exercise in gutter journalism which did not even attempt to hide its bias.

One good thing emerges from this: your inflammatory documentary has animated my dedication to preserving Canada's constitutional monarchy for solid political reasons which were noticeably absent from your documentary.

As it turns out, it is the CBC that is an expensive anachronism, unloved by the people and doomed to die out. The monarchy has two advantages: it has Elizabeth and it is enshrined in our constitution. The CBC has neither.

Please note also that I am no spin-doctor of either Prince Charles or Buckingham Palace. I am simply a Canadian-born citizen who happens to believe that we are well-served by our constitutional monarchy.

Finally, I am perplexed why the CBC - already in financial trouble - would go out of its way to antagonize a large swathe of Canadians when its own future is in doubt.

I was unable to see the documentary on line as the server blocked it several times .

MODERATOR: To see this you need to be within Canada.

Canada's national broadcaster has aired a programme that throughout trashed our historic and contemporary system of government. This was an hour-long sneer on Canada's Crown Prince, his royal consort, and his children. My goodness: the weirdo serves organic carrots to school children! This DocZone has dishonoured the CBC, and the CBC has in turn been dishonoured and wounded in allowing it to air. One person only, John Curtin, was given this toxic soapbox, as producer, writer, and director. How lucky for him and his predjudice.

I did watch this documentary and, as someone born in the UK, I agree with the sentiment that after Elizabeth 11 the monarchy should dissolve. Charles as King...I don't think so. If Canada needs the Royalty to have an identity, then shame on Canada, but I think we have more going for us than that. I enjoyed the documentary...good on you CBC.

Loved your After Elizabeth II but was disappointed that your researchers dd not disclose that under the constitution of England the monarch is also head of the Church of England and must take communion. Under those same rules, a divorced person can not take communion - so unless they change the rules of either the monarchy or the church of England - how can Charles become King. Also, his uncle Edward had to abdicate because he wanted to marry a divorcee, so what about Charles - the self-admitted adulterer. Charles insistence in meddling in political affairs is also a no-no for the monarchy.