Fake news. A term that sends shivers down the necks of both journalists and politicians alike. But within television how far can artistic interpretations go in blurring the line between fact and fiction? With the much-anticipated new season of the Netflix success The Crown hitting our screens these last weeks just how much must we take with a pinch of salt?
Accusations of fictitiousness plagued The Crown long before the airing of its newest season; the fourth season came under fire from the then culture Secretary Oliver Dowden, who called for a “health” warning to be played before every episode to make clear the artistic impressions the show is under – however Netflix pointedly refused. Claudia Harrison, the actress that plays Princess Anne in the new series, believes that adding disclaimers would “patronise” its audience, while Dame Judi Dench, has called for disclaimers to be added.
While this has caused a stir in both the political and acting worlds, it undeniably adds to the fervour surrounding the show.
Historian Hugo Vickers aptly pointed out in an article for the Times that, as the decade portrayed in the newest series has been so widely and deeply scrutinised for years by journalists and historians, it gives Peter Morgan, the show’s creator, ample chance to “produce a faithful representation of what was going on and possibly even help us understand it”.
And with the content covered including some of the worst years for the British Royal Family, one must question exactly how shows like these impact people’s perceptions of history?
Jennie Bond, who worked as a Royal correspondent in the 1990s, in a piece for the Telegraph, expressed concern with the way the “Annus Horribilis” speech was portrayed in the drama, calling the depiction“nonsensical”. As someone who witnessed the speech first hand, her disappointment and surprise is understandable. But when those who have not lived through the events sit down to watch (or in my case, binge) this drama, which Bond claims ‘skilfully melds fact with fiction’, you can understand why some take it to be the truth.
Elizabeth Debicki, the actress who portrays Princess Diana in the newest season, in an interview with The Guardian, stated she “never watched The Crown and thought this is a documentary, or this is obviously true”. Nevertheless, while no claims are made that the storyline is completely true, it still bases itself on events that did happen, and not too long ago.
It is also interesting to note the generational divide in opinion. For parents and grandparents alike, the events portrayed in the newest season of The Crown represent a part of their lives. My own parents say they can recall the exact place they were at when they heard of the death of Princess Diana, and the astonishing moments that happened after.
The series’ consulting historian, Robert Lacey, is well versed on the life of the late Queen, and his pioneering biography Majesty published in 1977 is acknowledged as the definitive study of the British monarchy. When he started to work as The Crown’s historical consultant, he wrote The Official Companion to The Crown in 2017 and another volume in late 2019. His website quotes the articles he has written in support of the series – however it is not a challenge to guess his position on the claims of historical inaccuracies plaguing the drama.
Regardless of Lacey’s work, in the end Peter Morgan is the creative mastermind behind the series. But many view that what started out in Morgan’s words as, “a love letter to the Queen” has begun stabbing at the reputation and legacy of a much-admired monarch. But with all the negative press (The Telegraph rated the new series two out of five stars) that doesn’t stop our natural curiosity, and even gluttony, for the drama. At the end of the day, how creative directors decide to fill the gaps in their subject matter is up to them. It links to freedom of speech in the media – a matter that is hotly debated in journalism, and a a right worth defending.
Many high-profile names such as former prime minister Sir John Major have spoken out about the drama’s inaccuracies about him and King Charles, describing the events in the drama as a “barrel-load of nonsense”.
This came after scenes were included in the trailer that showed the former Prime Minister involved in a plot to oust Queen Elizabeth from the throne after her 65th birthday in 1991, following a poll conducted by The Times. While the poll is factually correct, the supposed talks are all portrayed using dramatic licence.
When concerns arose over this scene, its creators spoke out saying the series has “always been presented as a drama based on historical events.”
But with such popularity, it does make one wonder just how much of an impact these types of dramas have on our perceptions of the monarchy, especially with King Charles’ recent accession to the throne. It is funny, as one would not think of these events as history, as they still linger in the memory of our parents. But with this series dramatising one of the darkest periods in the Windsor family’s history, and with the recent media battles between The Sussexes and Buckingham Palace, we must not be naive in thinking this series will have no impact on our new King and the stability of the monarchy in this decade.
However, we must acknowledge that historical TV dramas other than The Crown also hold inaccuracies.
Take the ever-popular Peaky Blinders series. It was set 30 years before any of the events even took place and the real gang were not nearly as elaborate as those portrayed in the drama.
But with the newest series of The Crown being released only a few weeks after the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II it feels like it has been plagued by ill-timing and even poorer taste. Many have called the show lacklustre, and some go as far to call it boring, and are bidding for its end. Even with the inclusion of warnings to make clear the drama is not a documentary – just what is the future of the show?
Whether or not the show continues, it clearly has reached a point where the acceptability of its vague,“true-ish” nature has run its course.
“The Crown Screening” by usembassylondon is licensed under CC BY-ND 2.0.