Here's Everything 'The Crown' Just Got Straight-Up Wrong About History

Facebook

Twitter

Copy link

Netflix’s The Crown is an addictive blend of pulp and prestige that charts Queen Elizabeth II's time on the throne. But how much of it is accurate? Yes, The Crown gets many scandalous things right about Queen Elizabeth’s life and the British Royal Family, like Princess Margaret, Porchie, and Louis Mountbatten. But, because of those facts The Crown got right, along with the overall historical accuracy and the jaw-dropping production value, audiences may wrongly assume that the show is a reliable history lesson.

The lavish series spares no expense in its dramatization of Queen Elizabeth’s reign. Indeed, critics, The Crown cast, and historians alike point out that The Crown really does take history seriously - the creators and writers have clearly done their research. But, every now and then, inaccuracies in The Crown rear their head. Just as often as it faithfully portrays actual events as they happened, such as the Aberfan Disaster, the show also bends the truth and relies on rumors to flesh out storylines and characterizations. Shows like The Crown revel in the murky, hearsay-saturated space between fact and fiction, where it can turn gossip into entire plots. Sure, there’s plenty of fun and drama in that, but not much verifiable, evidence-based history.

The series embellishes plenty of events for its narratives, and often those embellishments come at the expense of Prince Philip’s character. The fictionalized Duke of Edinburgh is portrayed as a petulant, vain, and downright obnoxious character who made Queen Elizabeth’s life unfairly difficult.

Completely accurate or not, The Crown makes history look glamorous as it re-creates and straight-up creates events from Elizabeth’s life and the United Kingdom’s past. 

Photo:

  • Prince Charles Never Asked John Major To Pressure Queen Elizabeth II Into Abdicating
    Photo: Netflix

    Prince Charles Never Asked John Major To Pressure Queen Elizabeth II Into Abdicating

    What The Show Portrays: Prince Charles tries to warm up to a new prime minister when he asks John Major to support him in trying to get Queen Elizabeth to abdicate.

    What Really Happened: The scene simply didn't happen. Indeed, John Major was so affronted by the show's suggestion that he actually released a statement to distance himself from The Crown. According to Major, the scene was nothing more than “a barrel load of malicious nonsense." He went on to say, “All the one-to-one conversation you see on screen are utter fiction and some scenes have been entirely created for dramatic and commercial purposes with little regard for the truth. People should be boycotting it.”

    Interestingly, Princess Diana's former press secretary Patrick Jephson alleged that Prince Charles did speak with another prime minister about his mother abdicating, just not Major. But until further details can be clarified, Jephson's claim remains an allegation and nothing more.

  • There's No Evidence That Queen Mary Personally Decided The Romanovs' Fate
    Photo: Netflix

    There's No Evidence That Queen Mary Personally Decided The Romanovs' Fate

    What The Show Portrays: In a flashback to 1918, Europe is engulfed in World War I. Members of the British royal family have to make a tough decision when Parliament sends a letter to King George V offering to help bring his cousin Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and his family to safety. After all, Russia is in the midst of a revolution, and the Romanovs aren't safe. But is it a good idea to bring the autocratic Romanovs to Great Britain? George defers to his wife Queen Mary, who advises him to deny the Romanovs amnesty and leave them to their terrible fate. 

    What Really Happened: No, Queen Mary did not personally foil the Romanovs' chance to find refuge in Great Britain. Instead, her husband George spent weeks mulling over what to do with the Russian royals, and it wasn't an easy decision. Historian Helen Rappaport explained:

    George might have been a moral coward in changing his mind about the family being given sanctuary in Britain, but this in itself is too simplistic as an explanation of what happened. Rather, one needs to explore the true extent to which anyone – let alone the king and his government – was in a position to wave a magic wand over the fate of the Romanovs. Granting asylum was one thing, getting them out of Russia was quite another.

    Blaming Mary for the Romanovs' fate is thus both unfair and historically inaccurate. 

  • Princess Diana Did Not Personally Forewarn The Queen About Her 'Panorama' Interview
    Photo: Netflix

    Princess Diana Did Not Personally Forewarn The Queen About Her 'Panorama' Interview

    What The Show Portrays: Princess Diana gives an interview to BBC's Panorama in which she lays out years of distress, anger, and hurt in the royal family. Before the interview airs, Diana does her mother-in-law the courtesy of visiting her in person and warning her that it will be on television.

    What Really Happened: Diana's bombshell interview with Panorama really did happen – and journalist Martin Bashir really did go to extreme, unethical lengths to get Diana to agree to do the show, as depicted in The Crown

    One thing that didn't happen: Diana did not forewarn the queen about the interview. Instead, her press secretary Patrick Jephson had to call and break the news to the queen's team. 

  • John Major Had Better Things To Do Than Guide Charles And Diana To An Amicable Divorce Settlement
    Photo: Netflix

    John Major Had Better Things To Do Than Guide Charles And Diana To An Amicable Divorce Settlement

    What The Show Portrays: When it's clear that Prince Charles and Diana's marriage has run its course, Queen Elizabeth gets an inspired idea: Prime Minister John Major – who worked to find peace in Northern Ireland – should mediate their settlement and get the divorce finalized as quickly and smoothly as possible. Major is flattered that the queen would task him with this role, and he agrees to it, even if it means spending less time with his family.

    What Really Happened: It's worth repeating: John Major was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He had lots of things to do, like run an entire country. So being the lead mediator in a royal divorce was not a top priority for him. Moreover, it's unlikely that the queen would have asked Major to negotiate the divorce; indeed, nothing in the historical record suggests that she did. 

    To be fair, Major wasn't completely divorced from the process. As HistoryExtra reported, Major did meet with the queen and the divorcing couple. But to suggest that he spearheaded negotiations is a step too far.