But it's OK for you to complain about the complainers. Is that because you're "right" and they're "wrong?"
I would say that if 100,000 people have complained then that is the tip of the iceberg, in terms of how many people were actually pissed off. I know I was pissed off about it, but I never complained to the BBC, and I'm not sure I'd know how to? So, in reality, your comment saying" they just had to complain" does not really hold water. The reality is SOME of them felt the need to complain, not all of them.
As for watching something else, that was very difficult due to all mainstream channels having blanket coverage. I have Sky, Netflix, Amazon Prime etc, so was able to avoid the blanket coverage, but not everyone does. What is particularly galling about the BBC specifically is that they have several channels, and are a public service, publicly funded, broadcaster. Therefore they did not need to put the same blanket coverage on EVERY channel of theirs. This is where they got it wrong. As much as it upsets you, not everyone wanted to watch wall to wall coverage for several hours and the BBC should, and I'm sure do/did, realise this. But instead of providing for different people's requirements (which is their remit) they decided to unilaterally force feed coverage on every one of their channels, giving people no choice. It was almost North Korean in its imposition.
Without coming out too Victor Meldrew, that is not what I pay my licence fee for. Surely any intelligent and rational person can understand this? We are all different, and the day our state broadcaster starts dictating that we should all be "force grieving" is a sad day for democracy in my view and has probably hardened many peoples' views against the monarchy, which I'm sure was not their intention.
Lastly, before anybody goes on about "respect" this is not about respect, it's about allowing those who want to watch this stuff to watch it, while realising that many people don't, so they should also be catered for by a publicly funded broadcaster.