‘The Crown’ depicts a series of events following Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension to the throne in 1952, following the life of the Queen and her children, with the most recent series focusing on Prince Charles and his marriage to Lady Diana. The contents of the show are however highly dramatized, and portray an inaccurate history of the Windsor family. Despite Netflix’s attempt to incorporate the history as accurately as possible with the drama of the show, it is inevitable that some aspects of the portrayal of these royal figures will be inaccurate as nobody can accurately summarise the royals, apart from the royals themselves and those close to them. A notable example of the misrepresentation of the royal family comes from the relationship between Prince Philip and Prince Charles portrayed in series two. It appears that Philip does not show any love to his son and is instead cold and distant towards him. However, this portrayal is supported by no historical evidence and arguably is completely fabricated. Palace insiders agree on this point, stating that the cruelness that Philip showed towards his son ‘simply did not happen’. [1] The show also takes liberties to portray the Queen disliking Margaret Thatcher so much that she explicitly instructs the royal press secretary to leak her opinions to the newspapers. Again, this appears to be a misrepresentation of the Queen. Although ‘The Sunday Times’ featured an article in 1986 that claimed the Queen disliked Thatcher, the palace team, who represent the Queen, strongly denied the report. Margaret Thatcher’s biographer, Robert Hardman, also holds the opinion that this event was a misrepresentation of the Queen as ‘no one at the Palace or Downing Street [...] seriously believed that the Queen had authorised, or even nudged, anyone to speak in those terms about her government’. [2] Perhaps the most significant inaccurate representation comes in the most recent series of the show, where a royal plot to break up Charles and Camilla, so that Charles could marry Diana, is hinted at. In reality there is no evidence of accounts from any members of the royal family or Princess Diana which support this. [3] Similarly, historians including Bedell Smith, who has written biographies of the Queen, Charles and Diana, debate on Netflix’s portrayal of Charles and Camilla’s affair as occurring entirely throughout his marriage to Diana. [4] Instead she asserts that this didn’t occur until around 1986, where Charles’ marriage to Diana had already broken down. Of course, as a show, creative liberties are needed to be taken in order to make the series interesting and keep audiences engaged. Recently, the Culture Secretary urged Netflix to introduce a disclaimer for the series that highlighted that it was a work of fiction, stating that ‘I fear a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact’. [5] I hope that as royal scandals and drama are introduced by the show to a new set of viewers who may not have known about these events historically, audiences are able to remember that the show is not to be taken as a documentary. If you’re looking for more information about the other inaccuracies of the show, as well as learn about the history behind some of the events depicted in ‘The Crown’, I’d recommend giving this article by ‘HistoryExtra’ a read: (https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/real-history-netflix-the-crown-series-queen-elizabeth-prince-philip-charles-camilla-what-really-happened/) [1] Dan Barna, ‘Glamour’, 25th September 2018, (https://www.glamour.com/story/queen-elizabeth-wasnt-happy-with-the-crown-season-2-scene) [2] Michael Hein, ‘PopCulture’, 17th November 2020, (https://popculture.com/streaming/news/the-crown-10-biggest-historical-inaccuracies/#10) [3] Lauren Cahn, ‘Reader’s Digest’, 23rd December 2020, (https://www.rd.com/list/what-the-crown-gets-wrong-british-royal-family/) [4] Jonathan Bucks and Holly Bancroft for ‘The Mail On Sunday’, 21st November 2020, (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8973723/Proof-TV-audiences-believing-fiction-Netflix-series-Crown.html) [5] Sophie Barnes, ‘The Telegraph’, 6th December 2020, (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/06/netflix-refuses-warn-viewers-crown-series-historically-inaccurate/)

I agree that there must be some misrepresentation in the series, there is no definite way to truly know / understand the personal lives and thoughts of the royal family (as it is all kept so private). However, the series acts as entertainment to also portray accurate historical events that will educate the audience about recent history. For example, the recent series explored the history of the IRA and apartheid in South Africa. Though the show may misrepresent the royal family, should this 'poetic license' not be allowed / accepted if the show acts as a useful form of popular history which educates its audiences about key historical events? Also, yes the show must get some things wrong and misrepresent certain aspects of the family. On the other hand, they must also get some of it right. For example, the divorce of Charles and Diana most likely was a result of a series of messy and complicated events, which were portrayed and imagined on the show. There must have been some truth in the anger / frustration that the characters expressed. Just because some scenes lack the evidence of it being completely accurate, it also lacks the evidence to prove that it is completely false / misrepresented.