A series that is indeed a battle royal

LAST month Netflix was forced to slap a disclaimer on its trailer, describing its new season of The Crown as “inspired by real events”. Dame Judi Dench accused the show of verging on “crude sensationalism”, while Sir John Major said “fiction should not be paraded as fact” and Sir Tony Blair’s spokesman called one scene “complete and utter rubbish”. Two royal experts share their verdicts…

FOR TRACY BORMAN Royal historian and author

THE 1990s were arguably the worst decade of Elizabeth II’s long reign.

The Windsor fire, the decommissioning of her beloved Royal Yacht Britannia and the very public unravelling of three of her children’s marriages.

This being closely followed by the tragic death of Princess Diana, plunged the monarchy into a crisis.

The decade also provides the setting for season five of The Crown. As a historian of the monarchy, I was prepared to hate it – or at the very least be so annoyed by the inaccuracies that they spoiled my viewing.

In fact, I loved it. As well as boasting the strongest cast yet, the new season delivers everything viewers have come to expect from this lavish production.

And thanks to the decade offering up such a rich catalogue of scandals, the storylines make for irresistible television.

It is no small irony that in this age of mass communication we have fewer of the late Queen’s personal opinions on record than those of her predecessors.

The toll the “annus horribilis” of 1992 and all that followed had on Elizabeth II can, therefore, only be imagined.

And that is what The Crown does.

AGAINST DICKIE ARBITER former Buckingham Palace press secretary

WHAT concerns me is taking historical events – things that really happened and were important – and wrapping them in a fictitious script.

It’s sensationalising events and interpreting them in the worst possible way. The global audience is being fooled into thinking what Netflix is portraying is fact. That reflects badly on our Royal Family and on us as a nation.

I’ve not watched the latest series yet, but I am aware that the Queen’s speech to the Guildhall on November 24, 1992, to mark the 40th anniversary of her Accession, in which she referred to recent events as part of an “annus horribilis” or “horrible year” has been embroidered.

They’ve added words and phrases that were not in it. Given it’s one of the most famous speeches by the late monarch, what was wrong with the original words?

That’s playing around with history. Dramatisations like this, especially such lavish productions, can take on a life of their own. I wouldn’t be surprised in years to come to find clips from The Crown popping up on social media mistaken for the real thing.