Stars of The Crown have defended the show after critics accused it of “crude sensationalism”.
The new series focuses on a turbulent decade for the royals in the 1990s.
High-profile figures, including Dame Judi Dench, had called for a disclaimer to be added to remind viewers scenes are imagined. In a letter to the Times, the veteran actress said Netflix “seems willing to blur the lines between historical accuracy and crude sensationalism”.
Former prime minister Sir John Major also described a scene, showing Prince Charles having a conversation with him about the Queen abdicating, as “malicious nonsense”.
Netflix later added the words “fictional dramatisation” to the trailer for the new series.
“I think it’s been misrepresented in the press and it’s a big fuss about nothing,” claimed Jonny Lee Miller, who plays Sir John in the programme.
The programme’s third actress to play the late Queen, Imelda Staunton, told the BBC the drama should be viewed as “still history” as it’s set 30 years ago. Imelda Staunton takes over from Olivia Colman and Claire Foy to play Queen Elizabeth II in her later reign
Speaking at an earlier press conference Jonathan Pryce, who plays Prince Philip, said: “People will gain a bit of comfort seeing her embodied again.” He told the BBC’s David Sillito that the series “sets out to to humanise the Royal Family and allow us to experience some of the emotion they had.”
The actress playing Diana, Elizabeth Debicki, said the script is “extremely empathetic to both camps” and claims “it’s fair to both sides”.
Dominic West, who has met the King working with charity The Prince’s Trust, said he “wouldn’t have done it” if he didn’t think the writing was fair. The character is “such a great part”, West said. “That’s really what actors live for and you can’t really turn it down because he’s an amazing character.”
Royal author Katie Nicholl told the BBC: “This is the start of King Charles III’s reign. I was told by a former member of staff that he always feared that his reign would be overshadowed by the spectre of Diana. The spectre of the past, and those fears, when you consider this series of the crown, are completely justified because there will be a whole demographic tuning into Netflix, particularly the younger generation who are not as familiar with the accuracy of this storyline.”
I agree with Dame Judi:
Sir John Major is not alone in his concerns that the latest series of The Crown will present an inaccurate and hurtful account of history. Indeed, the closer the drama comes to our present times, the more freely it seems willing to blur the lines between historical accuracy and crude sensationalism.
While many will recognise The Crown for the brilliant but fictionalised account of events that it is, I fear that a significant number of viewers, particularly overseas, may take its version of history as being wholly true. Given some of the wounding suggestions apparently contained in the new series — that King Charles plotted for his mother to abdicate, for example, or once suggested his mother’s parenting was so deficient that she might have deserved a jail sentence — this is both cruelly unjust to the individuals and damaging to the institution they represent.
No one is a greater believer in artistic freedom than I, but this cannot go unchallenged. Despite this week stating publicly that The Crown has always been a “fictionalised drama” the programme makers have resisted all calls for them to carry a disclaimer at the start of each episode.
I have no doubt that many of Generation Z regard such ‘biographical entertainments’ as documentaries.
