In "The Lady or the Tiger?" by Frank R. Stockton, why does the king insist that the trial go on?

There appears to be three reasons for why the king insisted on the continuation of the trial.

First, the unusual trial was the centerpiece of the king's justice system, and it highlighted what he believed to be the wisdom inherent in his "barbaric idealism." It "pleased his fancy" to adopt a form of judgment that satisfied not only his ideals but also the dictates of his ego.

Second, the king was not especially pleased with the fact that his beloved daughter had taken to a commoner. According to the text, his daughter "was the apple of his eye, and was loved by him above all humanity." It was obvious that the actions of the princess had been a grave disappointment to him, so it would only be logical to suppose that the king would not have wanted to halt the trial.

Third, because of the nature of the trial, the accused would be conveniently "disposed" of (no matter which door he chose), and the king could just sit back and take "an aesthetic pleasure in watching the course of events" unfold before his eyes. Since the trial had been so cleverly designed, the king also knew that his own people could never level a "charge of unfairness" against him, "for did not the accused person have the whole matter in his own hands?" So, the king was heavily invested in letting the trial continue: aside from the benefits to his ego, the nature of the trial would let him avoid the charge of "unfairness" or arbitrary tyranny.