Is The Crown Historically Accurate? Debunking the Fiction vs. Fact Rut

The Crown is a widely acclaimed Netflix series that portrays the lives of the British monarchy. However, the show's claim to historical accuracy is often debated. While it is based on real people and events, the creators and writers have taken artistic liberties that can significantly deviate from actual history.

Artistic Licence and the Show's Foundation

The Crown is explicitly labeled as a fictional show based on real events and people, which means that the narrative is not a direct reflection of history. The individuals depicted in the series existed, and the major events did occur. However, the rest of the storyline is a product of the creators' imagination, a concept often referred to as 'artistic licence.' This artistic liberty sometimes leads to inaccuracies and exaggerations that can mislead viewers into believing the show is more factual than it actually is.

Controversial Castings and Characterizations

The show's castings have been a subject of much debate, particularly regarding the depictions of Queen Charlotte and Anne Boleyn. The portrayal of Queen Charlotte as a black woman, despite her being German, and the controversy surrounding an unspecified Persian prince are examples of how the show deviates from factual history. These alterations suggest a miscasting issue that undermines the show's credibility.

Metaphors and Allegories in Season 5

Season 5 of The Crown, in particular, has faced criticism for its use of metaphors and allegories. One example is the comparison of Queen Elizabeth to the royal yacht Britannia, which is not only a metaphor but also appears jarring given the timing and content. Additionally, comparing Princess Margaret to Princess Anne, who are very different in character and life choices, further intensifies the narrative discrepancies. The show also draws parallels between Queen Elizabeth and the burnt husk of Windsor Castle after a fire, a metaphor that is both intriguing and potentially misleading.

Performances and Writing Flaws

Several performances in the show, such as that of Michael C Hall in season two, have been criticized. The cameo as a member of the Kennedy dynasty is notably one of the worst, highlighting a decline in acting quality that detracts from the overall viewing experience. The writing itself is also subject to criticism, with season five being singled out due to its lack of subtlety and focus, leading to a weak season overall.

Marketing and Deception

The show's treatment of historical events can be seen as part of its larger marketing strategy. By creating a narrative that is partially based on real events, it aims to hook viewers and engage them emotionally, sometimes at the expense of historical accuracy. The intention behind the series is to make money by capitalizing on the desires of gullible and ill-educated viewers who have a blind faith in what they see on television. This strategy often means that viewers may believe the show to be more factual than it is, leading to a false sense of historical understanding.

Conclusion

While The Crown is a compelling and entertaining series, it is crucial to approach it with a critical eye. The show should be regarded as a piece of fiction with a historical foundation, rather than a direct account of the past. To gain an accurate understanding of the events and people depicted, viewers should supplement their viewing with additional research. This approach ensures that the entertainment value of the show is not overshadowed by a false sense of historical truth.

Key Takeaways:

The Crown is a mix of real events and fictional storytelling. Artistic licence leads to inaccuracies and exaggerations. Criticisms are valid regarding characterizations and writing quality. Approach the show with a critical mindset to appreciate its entertainment value without undermining factual history.