Opinion: It's too soon after Queen Elizabeth's death for The Crown's version of history

Imelda Staunton will star as the Queen in the new season of The Crown next month. Photo / AP

OPINION:

"Very distasteful and quite frankly, cruel rubbish," is how the Queen's former press secretary chose to describe one plotline in the forthcoming series of The Crown yesterday.

Dickie Arbiter was reacting to news that season five of the hit TV show – which premieres on November 9 – will hint at Prince Philip's rumoured affair with high society beauty Penny Knatchbull.

And Arbiter didn't stop there. "The truth is that Penny was a long-time friend of the whole family," he went on. "But Netflix are not interested in people's feelings."

That last part isn't strictly true. The embattled streaming giant is very much interested in portraying feelings and capitalising on them, but like anyone in the entertainment business, Netflix isn't going to get stuck down in the weeds with issues of fact versus fiction.

It would, however, like us to know that it considered stalling the release of the fifth series after the Queen's death last month – before deciding to go ahead as planned.

As with previous seasons and despite calls to add a disclaimer to the hit show, Netflix apparently has no intention of doing so. It has "always presented The Crown as a drama," it said back in 2020, "and we have every confidence our members understand it's a work of fiction that's broadly based on historical events."

Netflix will, however, continue to feature "trigger warnings" before episodes featuring nudity or Diana's eating disorder, the logic presumably being that whilst graphic depictions of such things may upset their subscribers, "creative" or factually inaccurate depictions of events will only upset members of the Royal Family. And they can't really feel things like we do, can they?

A new storyline due to feature on The Crown has been described as "very distasteful and quite frankly, cruel rubbish". Photo / Instagram

If you think I'm being glib, consider the statement made in one of the many think pieces written about whether a disclaimer is "really necessary considering fans are aware that The Crown is not a documentary": "Surely the Royal Family can't be that fragile".

No question mark is needed because it's simply impossible that any member of that illustrious clan could be hurt or angered by something as titillating as, say, the friendship between Philip and Knatchbull, played by Natascha McElhone. Even if, as Arbiter says, this will be shown "just weeks after the nation laid Her Majesty to rest next to Prince Philip."

You could of course interpret that statement about fragility differently: as in "The institution can't be that fragile. How can a mere TV show rock something as solid as The Monarchy?"

Well it is, of course, deeply fragile, thanks to a number of factors (not least the behaviour of two of its lead characters), but it's also obvious that the series once described by its creator, Peter Morgan, as "a love letter to the Queen" has prompted a new fascination and appreciation for the Royal Family around the world.

In any case, art doesn't exist to protect or bolster institutions. It exists to entertain, to provide escapism and joy. And The Crown does all that brilliantly.

But that "confidence" Netflix has in its viewers' understanding of history? I believe it's both disingenuous and misplaced. Every time I see my devout The Crown fan friend in LA, she'll tell me about some new non-fact she's learned from the series. But one would hope that any Brit over the age of 35 will at least remember living through the period we're about to "witness" once again, in all its lurid detail.

Peter Morgan once described The Crown as "a love letter to the Queen". Photo / Instagram

Authenticity isn't synonymous with accuracy. Indeed, it often makes inaccuracies easier to swallow. I once lost an argument with a university student over the 2018 film Mary Queen of Scots. I say lost because by the end she was still adamant that Mary and Queen Elizabeth I had in fact met, as shown on screen.

Meanwhile many historians admitted to watching Netflix's The Last Kingdom through parted fingers, so numerous were the historical inaccuracies (which viewers were likely to forevermore tout as fact.)

On Saturday, a university academic threatened legal action against the makers of a new film, The Lost King, which tells the story of an "ordinary woman", Philippa Langley, who "took on the country's most eminent historians, forcing them to think again."

According to Richard Taylor, who was part of the University of Leicester team that found and identified the king's remains a decade ago, the heart-warming comedy-drama isn't just "far-removed" from the truth but "reckless" with it. Nevertheless, promotional material calls the film a "remarkable, true story".

In just over a month's time, there will be a new cast iron fact to go down in the "According to TV" history books: Prince Philip's affair with "Leggy Penny."

And when I see my LA friend, she'll tell me how surprised she was to learn that "Prince Philip was such a bad guy – who knew?" Not the people putting it out there, that's for sure.