The irony is that the pearl clutchers are all rabid monarchists who think the show reflects poorly on the Windsors. When it goes out of its way to make Liz look far more sympathetic than there’s the slightest bit of evidence for (she was deeply concerned about the working man and anti Thatcher?). And thats before you…

When it comes to an accurate historical depiction of Diana and Thatcher I have a lot more faith in Netflix than I do in The Daily Mail and a Tory minister.

I think it’s because in the earlier years (covered by seasons 1 and 2) there was a lot less family to deal with. Pretty much the main characters were Elizabeth, Phillip, Margaret, and Churchill. The third season really just added Anne and Charles, with not a lot of focus on Anne, but a significant portion of focus on…

Dowden’s worried about the damage a fictional portrayal of an obsolete monarchy which up until now has managed to control its scandals (and keep Andrew out of prison!), while happily living off the taxpayers..lol! Dude needs to worry about real problems like COVID, the economy on its knees and how the taxpayers will…

i’d like to know more about the concerns of the commonwealth.
as a citizen and resident of a commonwealth country, i can safely say we don’t care. however, we are a sovereign republic, so we have the option of not caring.

The Kennedy’s doctor is pretty well known at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Jacobson

‘because otherwise “a generation of viewers who did not live through these events may mistake fiction for fact.”’

Yes but it’s Simon Jenkins who tends to act as a kind of in-house contrarian at the Guardian.

For one, I frankly don’t give a shit what anyone says about The Crown being fictional. There was something said, years ago, about how the Royal Family was doing spin for centuries before spin was even named spin. In the past fifty years in the UK we’ve seen continuous and ever-inescapable erosion of their public image…

It can also mean that you’re slightly mad.

True.  The Churchill Painting episode from season 1 remains an all time favorite and you could probably call it a bottle episode for how much it mattered to the overall season. 

Truer words have never been spoken.  The Daily Mail used to be decent circa 1960s back when News of the World was the real Daily Mail.  But eventually the tabloid schlock curse appeared like a cancer and now its a paper reporting gay genes and conspiracy theories like it went out of fashion.  To think the Daily Mail…

If you’re reading the Daily Mail, you’re either laughing at it or you’re an idiot. Those are the options.

I think the more self-contained episodes have mostly been there from the beginning.  Some lean into it more than others but you can look back on episodes like the one about the poison fog that showed up in London or the episode focusing on Edward VIII’s nazi dealings.

I don’t have a problem with fictional extrapolation of events and relationships that would have played out away from the camera’s eye. Where I’ve been a bit frustrated with the show is when it runs counter to well-documented fact.

As documentaries about the UK go, I rate this one up there with House of Cards and The Haunting of Bly Manor.

Perhaps they should be more concerned that “monarchy”, as a concept, is pure fiction.

I haven’t got room in my emotional life to care about the details of the personal fortunes of more than a handful of specific people, all of whom are close friends or family. Charlie doesn’t rate.

But yeah, Dowden said in an interview with the Daily Mail that Netflix should be more explicit about the fact that The Crown is fiction,

Quite a few people on Twitter were noting that Prince Charles may now be back to square one after spending two decades successfully rehabilitating his image to a lot of the population. From everything I’ve heard about him, I can’t say I really care.