Are period dramas ruining history?
The return of Netflix series The Crown has sparked debate about its take on the royal family. We spoke to historians FERN RIDDELL and NICOLA TALLIS about the extent to which it matters that dramas depict the past accurately, and the ethical issues raised
Matt Elton How important is it that period dramas are historically accurate? Fern Riddell Having worked as a historical consultant on period dramas, I feel strongly that historical accuracy is one of the most important elements when recreating the lives of our ancestors or an event from the past. If you’re creating a total fantasy world set in the past, then of course accuracy is completely in the eye of the team making it. But even then, it still has a place – more in the texture and wider world than in aiming for a perfect recreation of a moment in time.
Nicola Tallis I agree, but I think it also depends on what the drama purports to be. If it’s setting out to recreate real events and portray real people, then there is a greater expectation that it will depict those people and the events they lived through in an accurate way. But if it’s creating a completely fictional drama set in the past, that obviously gives it a lot more freedom and artistic licence to dramatise events. The TV drama Harlots is a great example of this. It’s based on a non-fiction book [Hallie Rubenhold’s 2005 The Covent Garden Ladies], but features completely fictional characters facing events and scenarios with which women would perhaps have been confronted at that time. It’s a really good example of a historical drama that is loosely accurate, but which doesn’t have quite the same responsibilities to the audience because it isn’t based on real people.
ME That distinction is really interesting, particularly in relation to The Crown, which has recently attracted huge levels of commentary. Is there something about that series that makes it a flashpoint? NT Absolutely. Members of the royal family are a source of fascination, and we feel that we know them even though they are actually quite distant figures. There is also a feeling of public ownership – that we have a right to know what goes on behind closed doors. I also think that, even though The Crown presents itself as a drama loosely based on historical events, it still has a huge responsibility to portray its characters in a way that matches reality. We’re having this conversation before its fifth season has been released, and already it’s received criticism for its portrayal of Charles – particularly a completely fictitious scene in which he plans to overthrow his mother. To my mind, that’s the most ridiculous piece of artistic licence. I think that any historical drama that helps engage an audience and encourages it to find out more is a good thing, but you wouldn’t have to do too much digging to find out that – as far as we know – Charles never plotted to force Elizabeth II to abdicate.
FR This is one of the moments, though, in which we’ve slightly lost touch of what’s real and what’s fiction. I think that, both as commentators and as people involved in making these kinds of shows, we have a tendency to treat our audiences as if they’re stupid. We’re talking about drama here. It is a complete fiction, even when it deals with real people, people we feel connected to, or people living today. Dramatisations will always be fantasy. They will always employ creative licence. If you want to learn about something, watch a documentary. If you want to be captivated and excited by a world, watch a drama. There’s a reason we study Shakespeare’s historical plays in drama lessons and English language lessons rather than history lessons, and we need to understand that historical dramas are the same.
Both as commentators
and as people involved
in making these shows,
we have a tendency
to treat audiences as if they are stupid FERN RIDDELL