Monarchy will survive

MOST viewers of The Crown are perfectly aware of the differences between a true story and what is based on one (Mail).

it’s rare for any drama to actually tell a true story, as opposed to ideas swirling in a screenwriter’s head. even true history — whether it’s the 1980s or far less recent times — is continuously revised by new scholarship and by historians.

a historical/ biographical / docudrama only ever tells part of the real story, as drama is entertainment and its truth is confined within the limits set by the dramatist.

ever since the birth of cinema, writers have played fast and loose with historical reality, and it goes further back into literature. The conflict between ‘entertain’ and ‘inform’ is an ancient one.

How realistic is Homer’s depiction of the siege of Troy? How historically accurate was shakespeare’s depiction of richard iii?

There is a growing concern that The Crown has done irrevocable damage to the monarchy, but we’ve seen far worse controversy and periods of unpopularity over the years.

as Prince regent and King, george iv retained very little respect and was considered a national joke; several republican movements grew during Queen victoria’s long period of clinical depression; the eldest son of george v had a series of scandalous affairs with married women; that same son, as edward viii, would cause the abdication Crisis; Princess Margaret fell in love with a married man and gained a reputation for rudeness and hard-drinking; diana gave her bombshell Tv interview; the paparazzi caught sarah Ferguson in her compromising toe-sucking incident — the list goes on and on!

if the monarchy can survive all this, i’m sure it can recover from a television drama.

EMILIE LAMPLOUGH,

Trowbridge, Wilts.