The Crown and Queen Elizabeth II: The Reality of Fictional Depictions

When it comes to the critically-acclaimed television series The Crown, there has often been debate surrounding the need for Queen Elizabeth II's personal approval for the production of the show. This article aims to clarify the situation and explore the broader implications of depicting historical figures in fictional works.

It is important to note that the creators of The Crown did not require the personal approval of Queen Elizabeth II to produce the series. The show is a dramatization of real historical events, and the producers aimed to portray the complexities of the British monarchy without seeking direct approval from the royal family. Buckingham Palace was not involved in the production, and the royal family did not have any control over the content of the series.

The Freedom of Creative Expression

As long as the show includes a disclaimer such as “Inspired by true events,” rather than labeling it as a documentary, it is protected under the principles of freedom of creative expression. This freedom is a fundamental aspect of democratic societies, allowing artists to create works based on real-life incidents without needing explicit permission from the individuals involved.

The same principle applies to other fictional works based on real people. For example, films about real individuals like Gerry Adams, Gary Glitter, or Charles Bronson, made without their consent, often proceed without facing legal challenges. The creators are free to write and portray these figures as they see fit, as long as they do not intentionally spread false information that constitutes slander or libel.

Public Figures and Their Exploitation in Media

Historical figures, even recent ones, are not typically consulted or required to provide approval for media productions about their lives. This is because public figures have already consented to their personal details being made public through their roles in public life. Additionally, the disclaimer at the end of films that states, “All persons depicted herein,” serves as a legal safeguard, acknowledging that the portrayal may not be entirely factual.

Fictional shows, like The Crown, which clearly state they are “inspired by real events,” are free to take liberties with the lives of real people. This is in line with the concept of “real person fanfiction,” where creators explore, distort, or fabricate aspects of the lives of real individuals. The producers of such shows do not need to gain approval from the individuals they are portraying, as they are public figures, and their personal details are already part of the public domain.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

While fictional depictions are generally protected, there is still an ethical responsibility to ensure that the portrayal is not intentionally false or misleading. The producers of The Crown have stated that they aimed to portray the complexities of the monarchy and its impact on British society, rather than engaging in reckless defamation. Should they make demonstrably false claims, the most severe consequence the royal family could face would be a lawsuit for libel, which is the legal term for spreading false information that harms someone's reputation.

Furthermore, the freedom to create and air such works is a crucial aspect of media diversity and cultural expression. While it is understandable to have concerns about the portrayal of historical figures, the legal and ethical frameworks in place protect creators from needing explicit permission from public figures to produce works based on their lives.

In conclusion, The Crown and similar fictional works based on historical figures are protected under the principles of freedom of creative expression, allowing them to depict these figures without the need for personal approval from the individuals concerned. This freedom is essential to ensure that historical narratives can be explored and presented in diverse and innovative ways.