[CdM] Ah. Snopes. It's an interesting one. They do openly state that the distributors were not responsible for the change. However, the director states that the story is "not totally untrue". What he doesn't state (at least snopes doesn't state it) is that market research was undertaken and that because of the lack of the word "King" in the title, Americans did not make the connection between George III and King George III. The studio thought it a big enough risk from the results of the market research that the title 'King' had to be added. The 'III' was also removed. It has never been revealed why. The studio only ever mentions why King was added. One must assume that it was done for a reason that does not want to be publicly disclosed. One thing a good director knows is that in the film industry, you don't get far if you call your largest audience stupid. So I think on this, Snopes should rate it as unconfirmed.
[nfras] Yes, I'd agree it has a hint of 'unconfirmed' about it. But do you know that such market research was undertaken and found the result you state? If so, then I withdraw my objection. Otherwise, I think the story is better put in the urban legend category.